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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the non-custodial model ("this server holds no keys"), that it prepares rather than submits transactions, and all three paths by which escrowed funds are released. It stops short of stating auth requirements, idempotency, or whether the order record exists before signing.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler: the constraint (never sign/send) is front-loaded, the two transactions are numbered, and the release conditions close it out. Every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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 3-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, custody model, and fund-release logic, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It omits prerequisites (login/auth) and the shape of what is returned (unsigned transaction payloads), which leaves a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so chainId (Base default vs Sepolia), serviceId, and buyerWallet are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ... the two transactions a buyer wallet must submit to hire a service," then enumerates them (stablecoin approve, createAndFundOrder on the escrow). This is far more than a tautology, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as register_order or prepare_order_action, so an agent cannot fully resolve which entry point applies.

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 parenthetical "never sign or send" plus the transaction list implies this is the first, offline step before a buyer submits signatures, giving usable implied context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over register_order or prepare_order_action, nor any prerequisite such as authentication.

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