Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations mark this non-destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that nothing enters matching — a real disclosure beyond structured fields. Gaps remain: it doesn't note that the wallet proof nonce is single-use/consumed or that idempotentHint is false despite a required idempotencyKey, both of which affect retry behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the cardinality and the non-mutating guarantee front-loaded, and nothing wasted. It is, however, terse to the point of leaving the follow-up action unstated, which costs a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The rich schema and an output schema relieve the description of documenting fields and return values, and annotations cover safety. But for an auth-gated preparation step feeding a separate placement tool, the description omits the end-to-end flow and the interaction with problee_batch_place_orders, leaving a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the per-parameter descriptions are unusually rich (price grid, minRestingShares, basis-point conversion, orderSignature semantics). The description contributes only the 1–50 cardinality, which the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare ... unsigned EIP-712 orders') with an explicit batch bound (1–50) and a clear scope limit ('creates signing payloads only and accepts nothing into matching'). That scope clause implicitly distinguishes it from problee_batch_place_orders, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the pairing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'creates signing payloads only' suggests a sign-then-submit workflow, but the description never says what to do with the returned payloads, nor points to problee_batch_place_orders as the follow-up step. No prerequisites (wallet proof, nonce, idempotency key) or when-not-to-use guidance appear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.