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 two useful traits: the output is unsigned ('prepare (unsigned)') and access is permissionless ('Anyone may call it'). It does not say what happens if the escalation window has not elapsed, whether the call is idempotent, or what the caller must do with the returned transaction.

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 dense sentence with the key qualifier (escalated, 7-day timeout) front-loaded and no filler. Slightly jargon-heavy parenthetical '(claimEscalated)' but it earns its place as a state identifier.

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 2-param prepare tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, the effect, and the permission model. It leaves a gap around what the caller does next with the unsigned transaction and any failure conditions, which matters given there is no output schema to explain the return.

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 both parameters (job id, wallet address) are already fully documented, including the note that nothing is sent from the wallet. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

States a specific action (prepare an unsigned transaction) and the exact on-chain condition — collecting full pay on a dispute the guardian failed to rule on within 7 days. This condition effectively distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_board_claim and prepare_board_escalate, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

'Anyone may call it' plus the 7-day-no-ruling condition gives an implicit trigger and a permission statement. However, it never tells the agent to choose this over prepare_board_claim, prepare_board_escalate, or prepare_board_expire, so the routing decision 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.