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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially delivers: it discloses that the transaction is unsigned (not broadcast), that it costs ZENI, and that the effect is +1 rating capped at 6. It omits permissions required, reversibility, failure modes, and what 'approve' entails.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope, then adds cost/effect. Dense but not padded, though the 'approve and then train' clause reads as an awkward 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?

For a transaction-preparation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, cost, and effect, which is the minimum viable. It leaves the return shape (presumably an unsigned transaction), the approve/train mechanics, and both parameters unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions either parameter. The names wallet and fighterId are self-explanatory, but no format, ownership, or constraint information is added beyond the schema.

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+resource: preparing an unsigned training transaction for one of your fighters. The 'approve and then train' phrase clarifies the two-step nature, and 'training' distinguishes it from sibling prepare_* tools. Slightly muddied by the game-jargon phrasing, but an agent can tell what it does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the many siblings (prepare_challenge, prepare_bet, prepare_mint_fighter, etc.) or any precondition for calling it. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'for one of your fighters'.

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