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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the effect (24 game-hours immunity to tricks and squad raids, Burner Phone armed if none), the rate limit (2 per wallet per 7 game days), the money flow (all ZENI goes to the reward pool), and the failure mode (refused with the reason). It stops short of stating what the prepared payload looks like or how long it stays valid before approval.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the verb, resource and scope, then layers effects, limits, economics and failure conditions. Efficient, though the nested parentheticals make it slightly run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the important return-relevant behavior (refused with a reason; unsigned prepare awaiting price approval) plus the economics and cooldown an agent needs before calling. A note on the prepared-transaction lifetime would make it complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that crewId must be one of your own crews; it adds nothing about the wallet's role beyond what the schema already says.

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 Safehouse') plus the exact target ('on one of YOUR crews'), and the sibling set is a prepare_* family so the unsigned-transaction role is unambiguous. The parenthetical 'approve the exact price first' immediately frames it as the first half of a two-step flow.

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 concrete preconditions ('tricks are not live or the crew is already safe' → refused) and a constraint on the target ('one of YOUR crews'), which is real guidance about when this call will succeed. It does not name a sibling alternative for other cases (e.g. what to use when tricks aren't live), so it stops short of a full when/when-not split.

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