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

Annotations provide no behavioral details (all hints are false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a sign link and that nothing happens until the user approves it in their wallet, making the non-executing nature explicit. It also mentions the cost (network fee only), which is critical for an agent to know. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does and what it does not do.

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly packed with all essential information. It front-loads the primary action, then the condition, the return value, the side-effect (nothing happens until approval), the cost, and a pointer to a related tool. Every clause contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is an exemplar of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, the approval requirement, the cost, and a prerequisite check. It does not describe error conditions or detailed sign-link usage, but those are beyond the scope of a prepare action and are not necessary for an agent to call it correctly. The tool's simplicity and the description's clarity make it complete.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. With zero parameters, the description has no need to explain parameter semantics, so the baseline is 4. The description does add context about the wallet that approves (the agent's wallet) and the return of a sign link, which indirectly informs how the tool is invoked but is not parameter-specific. It fully suffices for a parameterless tool.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: preparing a claim of creator earnings for every coin in the approving wallet. It specifies the action (prepare claim), the resource (creator earnings on coins), and the condition (wallet approval). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on earnings claims, while siblings like prepare_launch, prepare_trade, and request_status handle different operations. The phrase 'See anchorpad_my_coins first' further clarifies its relationship to the read-only query tool.

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?

The description explicitly instructs users to check anchorpad_my_coins first to see what is unclaimed, providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It also notes that the action costs only the network fee, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_launch or prepare_trade, though those are semantically distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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