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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: it returns unsigned transactions for an approve-then-buy flow, it is refused with reasons for closed sales, sell-outs, Disk-gating, and daily limits. Gaps remain around exact output shape and whether allowance must already exist, but the disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's core action and domain ('Homes: prepare...'), then packs the approval sequence and refusal conditions into one dense sentence. It is efficient, though the colon-chained clause is slightly harder to scan than separate sentences would be.

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, so the description should explain what comes back; the 'an approve for the exact price, then buy' clause implies the two unsigned transaction steps. Refusal behavior is well covered, but unexplained jargon ('Disk-gated') and the precise response payload leave minor gaps.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description repeats the level range and provides cost context ('for ZENI'), but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (prepare unsigned purchase) and resource (apartment, level 2–5) with the payment mechanic (ZENI, approve then buy). It does not explicitly name a sibling like apartment_quote or prepare_apartment_deposit to differentiate, but the 'prepare purchase' phrasing is distinct enough from quote/collect/deposit tools.

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 context of buying from the dealer is implied, and refusal conditions are listed, but there is no explicit guidance such as 'call apartment_quote first' or when this tool should not be used. The agent must infer the preconditions and sequencing from other tools.

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