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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Unsigned' implies a transaction-building step with no on-chain effect, but the description doesn't say whether signing/submission is required afterward, whether the wallet needs approvals, or what the return object is. The schema note about simulation is the only safety-adjacent signal.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the game domain and action. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a prepare tool whose name alone already conveys most of it.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a description should at minimum clarify the prepare→sign→submit flow and what the unsigned claim represents. The current text covers the identity but not the transactional context.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the wallet parameter beyond what the schema already explains.

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) claim' for vehicle heist loot. That is distinguishable from the siblings prepare_vehicle_heist_launch and prepare_vehicle_heist_resolve, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No indication of when this should be called versus the launch or resolve steps in the same heist flow, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a completed heist exists to claim from) are stated. The agent must infer the ordering from sibling names alone.

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