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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully says the transaction is unsigned and explains that items 7-9 are spent automatically by heists, but it does not clarify that the result must be signed/submitted, what permissions or wallet constraints apply, or whether items 1-6 are consumed.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with purpose and then packs the item/crew mapping efficiently. It is dense but appropriate for the amount of routing information it needs to convey.

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/unsigned transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should explain return/signing expectations and side effects more fully. It covers item allocation and automatic spending of items 7-9, but leaves the transaction lifecycle under-specified.

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 four parameters. The description repeats the item-to-crewId/crewIds mapping and adds the note about items 7-9 being automatic, but does not add syntax or examples beyond 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?

The description states a specific action: preparing an unsigned dispensary use transaction from a supply already held on a crew. It clearly distinguishes this from buying, though it does not name the sibling buy tool 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?

It implies when to use this tool by saying the supply is one you already hold, and it maps item groups to crewId versus crewIds. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like prepare_dispensary_buy or dispensary_shop, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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