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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the important traits: the output is unsigned (nothing is broadcast yet), there is a hard ordering dependency on job_complete, and the voucher carries a deadline. It omits whether the prepared transaction must be signed/broadcast afterwards, whether the claim is one-shot, and what the return payload looks like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the immediate prerequisite. The parenthetical naming of claimWithVoucher is slightly cluttered but earns its place as the on-chain method reference.

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-required-param prepare tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and state preconditions but leaves the agent unclear on the post-call step (signing/broadcasting the unsigned transaction) and on how this differs from prepare_board_claim / prepare_board_claim_escalated.

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 the schema already defines all four parameters including the 65-byte voucher format and the wallet's simulation role. The description only adds provenance (voucher and deadline come from job_complete), which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource: it prepares an unsigned transaction to collect pay via the Worker's DONE voucher (claimWithVoucher). The phrase 'This is how a project (house) report job pays' adds economic context. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the near-identical siblings prepare_board_claim and prepare_board_claim_escalated.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call job_complete first, take the voucher and deadline it returns, then pass them here. It also states the job states in which it works (Delivered, rejected, escalated). No guidance on when to prefer the sibling claim tools instead, which matters given three similar-sounding claim preparers.

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