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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing that this prepares an unsigned transaction, that it approves half the debt and then calls payBribe, that only the owner may use it during the event, and that unpaid crews incur full charges later. It still omits failure behavior, reversibility, and what exactly the prepared output is.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes only relevant constraints. The parenthetical and trailing clauses earn their place, though the sentence is harder to parse than it could be.

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 complex game action with no output schema, it gives the key context: the triggering event, ownership requirement, timing window, transaction sequence, and post-event penalty. It is sufficient to decide whether to call the tool, though it does not explain what the prepared transaction returns or how to submit it.

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 both parameters. The description adds only indirect context by tying the crew to its owner and the wallet to an unsigned preparation, without adding syntax or usage 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?

The description states a specific action: preparing an unsigned bribe payment for a crew when selected by an Informant event. It clearly distinguishes the action from generic payment or other prepare_* tools through the event and crew context, though it relies on domain jargon.

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 explicitly says the tool is only for the crew's owner and only while the Informant event runs, and it warns that unpaid crews are charged in full afterwards. It does not name alternative tools, but the eligibility and timing conditions are clear.

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