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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: the call is an unsigned prepare, costs ZENI, requires prior approval, emits a public chain event, and only works while wanted. It stops short of explaining failure behavior, reversibility, or exactly how 'heat' is consumed, leaving some operational behavior undisclosed.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The telegraphic phrasing ('Heat: prepare (unsigned) Lie Low:') is efficient but slightly hurts readability and could be clearer without adding length.

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 preparation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites and side effects reasonably well but omits what the tool returns (presumably an unsigned transaction), what 'heat' and 'heist break' mean operationally, and how success/failure is surfaced. Important gaps remain for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

There is one parameter (wallet) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that it is used only for balance/allowance reads and simulation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the domain context of 'heat you have left', making the baseline 3 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 names a specific action (Lie Low) and its effect: hiding the caller from the Wanted list and starting a heist break. It is distinguishable from generic prepare_* siblings by the wanted-list framing, but the heavy domain jargon ('heat', 'heist break', 'chain event') and lack of explicit sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Only while you are wanted') and a prerequisite ('Costs ZENI (approve first)'), which is useful context. However, it does not name alternatives such as checking wanted_wall or explain what to do when not wanted, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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