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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that preparation is non-mutating. The description adds that the underlying call is permissionless and targets one token, but it does not explain what preparing entails, such as transaction-request generation, approval assumptions, or behavior when capacity is already sufficient.

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 with no filler or repetition. The terseness is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 domain-specific prepare tool with four required parameters, the description omits when to use it, what preparation yields, and how min_capacity is interpreted. The output schema and readOnlyHint cover return values and safety partially, but the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 75%, and the description mentions only the token ('one ERC-20 token'), not sender, chain_id, or min_capacity. It also says ERC-20-only while the schema explicitly allows the native token via the zero address, and min_capacity has no schema description or description-level explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prepare') and unique resource ('permissionless Oracle expandCapacity call') scoped to one token. It is distinguishable from the many other prepare_* siblings by naming a unique protocol action, though it does not explain what Oracle capacity expansion entails.

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 says only that the target is one ERC-20 token; there is no guidance on when to use this rather than another prepare tool, what prerequisites exist, or when capacity expansion is appropriate. Usage is left to inference.

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