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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the output is unsigned, that nothing is sent from the wallet, that the sender only pays gas, and that the call is permissionless and gated on a published drand value. Missing only failure/revert behavior if preconditions aren't met.

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; the identity of the operation is front-loaded and the precondition and consequence follow in order of decision relevance.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials for a transaction-preparation tool: unsigned output, gas-only cost, permissionless send, gating condition, and purpose. A small gap remains around what the caller should do with the unsigned payload and how errors surface.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema, including the note that the wallet is read-only and not debited. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: preparing an unsigned settle transaction for a closed Cho-Han round. The '(settle)' qualifier and 'closed round' scope separate it from prepare_cho_han_bet and prepare_cho_han_claim, though it never names those siblings 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?

States the trigger condition clearly ('once the round's bell has rung and its drand number is published'), who may call it ('anyone'), and its downstream role ('settling is what lets winners claim'). It does not spell out what happens if called too early, but the usage context is genuinely actionable.

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