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

Discloses a crucial non-execution behavior: 'Returns a sign link... nothing happens until they approve it in their wallet.' It also adds the approval-page detail of a live price and 3% slippage limit. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is false.

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 sentences with a clear order: purpose first, then the sign-link behavior, then parameter semantics and slippage. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, return concept (sign link), user approval requirement, and slippage behavior. It doesn't specify the exact format of the sign link or error conditions, but with no output schema and a clear call flow, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 100%, but the description adds essential meaning absent from the schema: amount is in the pair asset for a buy (e.g., 0.1 SOL) and in coins for a sell. This resolves a real unit ambiguity that the schema's 'plain number' description leaves open.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Prepare a buy or sell of an AnchorPad coin on its bonding curve.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_claim and prepare_launch, which are different operations even though they share the same domain.

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 makes the trade context explicit—buy or sell on the bonding curve—and clarifies amount units for both sides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can select this tool over siblings without further inference.

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