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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is sent on chain ('Read only on chain; nothing is sent'), that only intent is recorded, and what the downstream effect is ('gives the leader your yes for one day'). It omits failure modes (e.g. seat already taken) and whether the approval can be revoked before signing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return/signing contract, then the on-chain safety note. 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return value (an unsigned prepare_approve_leader call) and the safety profile, which is what an agent most needs. Remaining gaps (edge cases, whether the same seat can be requested twice) are minor.

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 id, role, slot, and wallet are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the id comes from open_seats, which the schema also states, so it adds little beyond the structured data. 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 ('ask for a seat in an open request') and implicitly distinguishes itself from open_seats (the source of the id) and prepare_approve_leader (the returned call). An agent can tell this is a board-seat request action without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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?

Clarifies the workflow: this only records intent, then the caller must sign the returned prepare_approve_leader request from their own wallet. That sequencing is real usage guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming a true alternative path.

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