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

Goes well past the annotations: results are simulated first, the output is unsigned (never signed or sent), there is an approval threshold that switches the return type to EIP-712 typed data, and the tool hard-refuses for contract owners. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling, none of which annotations convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two conditional branches and the safety guarantee. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested approval object and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (unsigned tx data vs. EIP-712 typed data), the preconditions, and the failure mode. An agent can decide whether and how to call it without further guessing.

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, but the description genuinely adds meaning about the approval object — it only applies above the threshold and pairs with typedData from a prior call. It does not mention approvalTtlSeconds or clarify the market/collateral/mintTokens interplay.

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 concrete action (open or add to a position via create(collateral, tokens) through the mandate account) and names the key mechanism — account-set allowance — that separates it from the plain prepare_create_position sibling. It never names that sibling outright, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear when-conditions: normally returns unsigned tx data, above the approval threshold returns EIP-712 typed data, and it refuses when the owner is a contract such as a Safe. The exclusion is explicit, but it offers no routing advice toward related siblings like prepare_mandate_create or prepare_mandate_set_limits.

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