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

With no annotations, the description must carry the weight, and it does disclose two important traits: the output is unsigned ("prepare (unsigned)") and submission is permissionless ("Anyone may send it"). It does not say what happens when preconditions are unmet, whether the bounty is transferred in ETH or tokens, or that the wallet is only used for balance/allowance reads and simulation — leaving meaningful state-change behavior undisclosed for a payout action.

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 dense clauses, front-loaded with the domain and action, with nothing redundant. The telegraphic phrasing ("Garage: prepare (unsigned)...", contract name in parentheses) is efficient but slightly terse for an agent unfamiliar with the game's terminology.

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 two-parameter prepare tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers domain, the on-chain function, the lifecycle precondition, unsigned output, and permissionlessness — enough to call it correctly. Missing only is error/edge-case behavior if the recovery is not in a settled-eligible state.

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 explains both caseId and wallet, including the non-obvious point that nothing is sent from the wallet. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, which meets the baseline but no more.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (prepare an unsigned bounty payment in the Garage domain) and names the underlying contract action "settleBounty", which pins down exactly which step of the recovery lifecycle this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other garage siblings (prepare_garage_claim_return, prepare_garage_park, prepare_garage_post_bounty), but the settlement framing is clear enough to separate it.

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?

"after the vehicle is back with the victim" gives a concrete precondition for calling, which is the main routing signal among the garage tools. "Anyone may send it" adds a permission note. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do instead if the vehicle is not yet returned, so no exclusions are given.

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