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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is server-derived (implying no local mutation), lists the exact return fields (to/data/value, nonce, gas parameters, balances), and notes the gas requirement. It does not explicitly state that the tool does not sign or submit the transaction, but this is inferable. For a getter, this is strong transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the function and return payload; the second provides usage context and a prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and to the point.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage prerequisites. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid listingId or non-pending listing) but that's not essential. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly 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 coverage is 100% with listingId described as a UUID. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'pending resale listing' but doesn't explain how to obtain the listingId or validate it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('server-derived EIP-1559/type-2 signing envelope for a pending resale deposit'). It specifies the exact scope (pending resale deposit) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like agentlux_resale_deposit_relay, which likely handles the actual deposit submission.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use before signing when the seller agent needs a complete transaction envelope' and adds a critical prerequisite ('the seller wallet needs Base ETH for gas'). While it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. It lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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