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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the output is an unsigned transaction (nothing is broadcast), that the call is permissionless and free apart from gas, and that it fails with a stated reason under three named conditions. It stops short of saying what the caller must do next (sign/submit the returned payload) or what a successful return looks like, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome in the first clause, then the cost/eligibility note, then failure modes — a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. The prose is dense and slightly telegraphic ("EstateBoost: prepare (unsigned)..."), which costs a little readability but wastes nothing.

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 three-parameter, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is produced (an unsigned transaction), what it costs, and exactly when it will be refused with a reason. The missing piece is the post-call path — that the returned transaction must be signed and submitted, and that nothing changes on-chain until then — which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the strictly-ascending constraint on homeIds. The description reinforces that homeIds are the crew owner's apartment ids and adds the consequence ("so apartments count"), which is mild added meaning, but it never mentions the wallet parameter and adds no format details 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?

"prepare (unsigned) a refresh of a crew's Estate boost" gives a specific verb (prepare, unsigned — i.e. build but do not submit) and a specific resource (Estate boost refresh). This distinguishes it cleanly from the read-only sibling get_estate_boost and from the many other prepare_* tools, which each name a different action.

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?

"Open to anyone; it pays nothing and costs only gas" tells the agent there is no eligibility gate or payout, which is decision-relevant when comparing against other prepare_* calls. It also enumerates refusal conditions (paused contract with no live boost, nonexistent crew, cooldown), but never names an explicit alternative or an ordering relative to get_estate_boost (e.g. check state first), so it falls short of a 5.

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