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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a tool that only builds a plan rather than broadcasting it. Beyond those annotations, the description adds real behavioral content: the plan is atomic, contains exactly three parts, uses an exact approval amount rather than an unlimited one, and performs allowance cleanup afterwards. It still does not state what it returns or whether the plan must be submitted separately.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the three plan components and the atomicity property, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause carries information an agent needs in order to select and invoke the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained, and the annotations supply the safety profile. The input schema fully documents all three parameters. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing guidance among the several Lido and generic wrap/unwrap prepare tools.

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 all three parameters (amount, sender, chain_id) are already documented in the schema, including the base-units format and the chain 1 constraint. The description's phrase 'exact stETH amount' reinforces the amount parameter, but it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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 states a specific verb ('Prepare') and a concrete resource set: an exact stETH approval, a wstETH wrap call, and an allowance cleanup, bundled into one atomic wallet plan. That is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest siblings (prepare_lido_unwrap, prepare_wrap_unwrap), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an stETH balance, Ethereum mainnet only). An agent must infer from the name that this is the wrapping path rather than the unwrapping path or the generic prepare_wrap_unwrap alternative. Usage is only implied, and the presence of overlapping siblings makes explicit routing more valuable here.

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