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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it returns unsigned transaction data, simulates first, refuses if simulation would revert, never signs or sends, binds session keys rather than the owner, and refuses an invalid minimum ratio. These details are consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by refusal behavior, signing behavior, and return semantics. Each sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it configures, optional market caps, validation refusal, unsigned output, simulation, and the fact that it never signs or sends. The schema handles detailed parameter definitions.

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 already high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds useful cross-parameter semantics, notably that market caps are optional and that the minimum ratio is refused if at or below any market's own minimum.

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 and resource: setting an account's limits and optional per-market caps. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like prepare_mandate_create or prepare_mandate_grant_session, though it does not explicitly name those siblings for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Set an account's limits' and by the optional marketCaps behavior, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related mandate tools or any prerequisites/exclusions beyond the ratio refusal rule.

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