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 important behavior: the transaction is unsigned, it involves an approve then buy, the price goes to the reward pool, and supplies cannot be traded. It still omits some operational context such as return shape or permission requirements, but it adds substantial behavioral value beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the operation and then adds the necessary item mapping and economic constraints. It is dense but largely earns its length because the item list compensates for the absence of an enum in the schema.

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-transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purchase flow, item ids, and economic constraints. It remains incomplete regarding what the prepared output looks like, approval details, and whether wallet simulation or authorization requirements affect invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by mapping itemId values 1 through 9 to specific supply names, which is meaningful detail not present in the schema's bare "1 to 9" description.

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 operation and resource: preparing an unsigned purchase of a dispensary supply, with an approve-then-buy flow. The item-id list makes the resource scope concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings like dispensary_shop or prepare_dispensary_use.

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?

Usage is implied by "prepare (unsigned) buying a supply" and the parenthetical approve-then-buy workflow. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over related tools such as dispensary_shop or other prepare_* actions, nor does it state exclusions.

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