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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key traits: the transaction is unsigned, nothing moves yet, the reason hash goes on chain, and there are timing constraints. It omits permissions (e.g., only the poster can call), return format, and that the wallet is used for simulation/balance checks.

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 three short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently packs constraints and consequences, though a slightly tighter phrasing could improve it marginally.

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 prepare tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the key constraints and next steps (escalation window). It omits explicit mention of the subsequent submit transaction, but the 'prepare (unsigned)' phrasing implies that pattern.

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 documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the reason requirement and its on-chain hash, but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (prepare), resource (POSTER rejecting a delivered report), and scope (within 72 hours of delivery). It distinguishes this from other board actions like accepting or escalating by specifying 'rejecting a delivered report', though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description implies when to use it: within 72 hours of delivery, with a reason, and notes the worker's 48-hour escalation window. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as prepare_board_accept or prepare_board_escalate, nor does it state that this must be followed by a submit step.

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