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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key traits: the action is unsigned, permissionless ('anyone can send it'), and free ('pays nothing'). It does not describe failure behavior or exactly what the prepared result contains, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

It is one compact sentence with the timing and permission/cost notes front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to selection or invocation. There is no repetition or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, it states the action, timing, and permission/cost profile, while the schema fully documents both parameters. The remaining gap is the exact unsigned payload returned and any failure conditions.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema documents huntId's origin and wallet's simulation/read-only role, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('reveal of a hunt'), plus the timing condition 'once its drand round is out.' That condition distinguishes it from prepare_hunt_start, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 clearly says when to call it ('once its drand round is out') and notes that anyone can send it and it pays nothing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it is not fully complete.

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