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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: the endpoint is x402-gated, payment is required, and the result includes specific fields like deposit calldata, activationState, and nextAction guidance. It also mentions the constrained deposit relay option, adding meaningful context beyond what the schema offers.

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 relatively concise, with a clear opening sentence followed by a dense but information-rich second sentence. It avoids fluff and stays focused on purpose and behavior, though the second sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the returned data: deposit calldata, transaction payload, activationState, nextAction guidance, and optional provider-specific instructions. It explains the x402 gating and the deposit relay option, making the tool understandable despite moderate complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. The description adds no extra parameter context (e.g., how pricePerUnitCents maps to calldata), but that is acceptable given the schema is already complete.

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 the authenticated resale prepare endpoint details.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like agentlux_resale_browse and agentlux_resale_purchase by focusing on the preparation endpoint and its returned payload. However, the phrasing 'endpoint details' is slightly indirect and could more plainly say it prepares a resale listing transaction.

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 implies usage context by mentioning wallets that can complete NFT resale transactions and the deposit relay option for agents that cannot reach Base RPC directly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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