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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating/risky profile is already known. The description adds real context beyond that: it does not submit on-chain but 'Returns unsigned transaction data', and it ties into the metaTx relay workflow. It does not mention the unlimited-allowance risk (only the schema alludes to max uint256), leaving a small gap for a destructive approval operation.

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 packed sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the ordering/exception rule, then the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant constraint leads.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return is unsigned transaction data, and it explains the workflow position and the metaTx alternative. For a 5-param approval tool this gives an agent everything needed to invoke it in the right sequence.

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 100%, so the schema already documents amount, configId, executionMode, and both addresses in detail. The description adds no parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Grants ERC-20 allowance to the Boson Protocol contract'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming commit_to_offer and deposit_funds as the operations it must precede. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the ordering requirement ('must be called before commit_to_offer or deposit_funds when using non-native exchange tokens') and the one exception (metaTx relay with transferAuthorizations built via sign_receive_with_* and passed to send_meta_transaction). When-to-use, prerequisite, and alternative path are all covered.

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