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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is unsigned (needs signing), that the vehicle is only read and 'never locked or moved', and what gameplay effects the declaration has. It leaves open what happens if a job vehicle is already declared (overwrite vs. error) and whether ownership of the token is verified during the call.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its one-vehicle scope, followed by effects, safety, and the aircraft exclusion. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 and no annotations, yet the description covers the effect, the read-only nature, and the asset-class restriction, which is enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is that it never says the result is an unsigned transaction payload for the caller to sign, nor what happens on re-declaration.

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%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by constraining tokenId to owned ground vehicles of three named classes and by implying ownership is the gating condition. The wallet parameter is only indirectly covered via 'you own', which keeps it from a 5.

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) declaring ONE ground vehicle you own ... as your job vehicle') and enumerates the valid vehicle classes (Sentinel, Hauler, Courier). It also draws a hard boundary against aircraft, which is what separates it from prepare_air_run, so an agent can distinguish it from the dense prepare_* sibling set.

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 clear use context ('When you are the Driver of a convoy hit or Ledger job') and one explicit exclusion (aircraft have no job vehicle role). It does not name the sibling an agent would use instead when it wants to unassign or change a vehicle (e.g. prepare_vehicle_drop), so routing guidance is good but not complete.

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