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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses the kit cost and that approval must happen first, the ~30s drand resolution delay, eligibility constraints, and an honest expected-value warning including round-specific defaults. It stops short of explaining what 'unsigned' implies for the agent's sign/submit workflow or what a failed hunt does to the kit.

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 action and its cost/timing lead the description, and every later sentence is decision-relevant (eligibility, odds, break-even). The round-default economics run long and include volatile numbers that could date, slightly diluting density.

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 3-required-param prepare tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers cost, timing, eligibility, next step, and expected value. The remaining gap is the mechanical flow: what the agent does with the unsigned result and 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% and already explains all three parameters (wallet is read-only/simulated, target is a crew wallet, bountyId comes from wanted_wall). The description restates the target concept ('naming one wallet of its crew') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (unsigned) a hunt on an open heat bounty, naming one wallet of its crew') and explicitly names the follow-up sibling prepare_hunt_resolve. An agent can distinguish it from the resolve step without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Pays a kit (approve first)'), hard exclusions ('You cannot hunt while wanted or from inside the crew'), a sequencing rule for the sibling tool, and a 'read the kit, win chance and payout cap from the chain first' check before calling. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and prerequisites all in one place.

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