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 important behavior: the action is unsigned/preparatory, approval is required first, the safe earns no yield, and raid risk applies. It stops short of explaining what the prepared unsigned transaction looks like or what happens after 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite and risk context compactly included. Every clause adds useful meaning.

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?

Given three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, approval prerequisite, and safe-risk context well enough to call it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the return value of the unsigned preparation step, but the essential context is present.

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 explains wallet, apartmentId, and amountZeni. The description adds conceptual context about the deposit but no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 and resource: prepare an unsigned ZENI deposit into the apartment safe. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_apartment_withdraw and prepare_apartment_buy.

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 states the key prerequisite '(approve first)', which is useful, and implies usage through 'deposit into your apartment's safe.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as withdrawing, collecting income, or buying an apartment, so routing guidance is only implied.

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