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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the payload is unsigned, permissionless ('Anyone can send it'), and free ('it pays nothing'), plus that the tool self-signals a wait condition instead of erroring. It stops short of describing what is actually returned or how failure modes look.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition; every sentence carries information. The leading 'Homes:' prefix is mildly garbled noise but costs little.

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, no-output-schema prepare step, the description covers who may call it, that it costs nothing, and the timing gate. An agent can call it correctly; the only real gap is how it relates to the sibling raid steps in sequence.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, including the non-obvious reassurance that wallet is read-only ('Nothing is sent from it'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 ('prepare (unsigned) the reveal') and resource ('a raid'), plus the precondition of the drand round being out. It implicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_raid_launch/prepare_raid_claim by the 'reveal' step, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 a concrete usage condition ('once its drand round is out') and an explicit when-not ('Tells you to wait if the round is not out yet'). It doesn't route the agent between this and the adjacent prepare_raid_claim/prepare_raid_launch steps, so the ordering across siblings is left to inference.

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