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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the depositTransaction from prepare is unsigned, requires adding nonce/gas fields, and that the seller needs Base ETH. This provides useful behavioral context beyond just 'relay'. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns or what happens on failure, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage condition, then technical detail. No fluff; each sentence contributes. Very concise yet informative.

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 specialized relay tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, signing details, gas requirement, and exclusion. It lacks explicit mention of the output or error behavior, but given the complexity and the presence of good schema descriptions, it is largely complete. A 4 is fitting.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the transaction type (EIP-1559/type-2), which fields to add, and clarifying the relationship between the signedTransaction and the prepared response. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, earning a 4.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Get the constrained resale deposit relay details') for a specific resource ('a pending listing'). It also differentiates from a generic relay by explicitly saying 'This is not a generic RPC relay', which distinguishes it from any other relay-like tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Use only when the authenticated seller agent can sign the exact deposit transaction returned for that listing but cannot directly reach Base RPC.' It also gives a prerequisite ('The seller wallet needs Base ETH for gas') and a clear exclusion ('not a generic RPC relay'), making when/when-not usage very clear.

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