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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool produces unsigned transactions, that the sequence is an approve then the bet, and that the caller must sign and send them. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and following with the essential clarification about who signs. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four-parameter transaction-preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and output mechanics adequately. However, it leaves the four parameters entirely undocumented, which is a real completeness gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at amountZeni via 'ZENI' and implies corner/fightId through the betting concept, but never explains what wallet, fightId, or corner mean or accept. This is a significant gap.

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), resource (Fight Club bet), unit (ZENI), and output form (unsigned transactions). This clearly separates it from the sibling prepare_mint_operative and any executing tool. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, so a 4 rather than 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 phrase 'You sign and send them yourself' implies the workflow context (this is a prerequisite step before signing), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or mention of an alternative for actually placing/executing the bet. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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