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

Beyond the annotations it discloses genuinely useful behavior: no gas and no nonce management for the agent, the settlement difference between committed-settlement markets (venue ledger at match, recorded on Base next batch) and onchain-settlement markets (own transaction, one-time approvals still apply). That is real context the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not carry. It does not mention idempotency/retry behavior in the prose, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the key 'no transaction to broadcast' constraint. The trailing 'Examples: Prepare a signable buy intent' adds no information and slightly dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

For a 13-parameter preparation tool with an output schema (so signPayload need not be explained) and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer: what happens after signing, who pays gas, and how settlement differs by market type. The only absent piece, preconditions like proofNonce/approvals, is already described in the schema properties.

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 description coverage is 77%, so the schema largely documents the 13 parameters itself, including the side/tradeType and amount/closePercent/targetCollateralOut distinctions. The description adds nothing at the parameter level — no guidance on side encoding, sizing, slippageBps, or the required signature fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource: prepare a signable trade intent for the agent wallet. The following sentences carve out the boundary that matters most against problee_execute_trade_intent — nothing is broadcast from here, the caller signs and POSTs elsewhere. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly (execute_trade_intent, prepare_trades_batch, simulate_trade), so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

It gives a clear downstream workflow (sign signPayload.typedData, then POST to /trade/execute-intent), which implies when this step is used. It never says when to prefer this over problee_simulate_trade, problee_get_quote, problee_prepare_trades_batch, or problee_place_limit_order, and it names no preconditions such as needing a proofNonce or one-time approvals first. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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