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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it clarifies that the output is off-chain readable text rather than an actual transaction or claim. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 two short, purposeful sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is stated first, and the clarifying exclusion is placed at the end, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides nearly all necessary context: off-chain, 24-hour duration, reservation, and non-transaction nature. It relies on the title for the 'empty-wallet' qualifier, but that is acceptable since the title is provided as context.

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% and the only parameter, wallet, is documented as an EVM address with a pattern. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning, but that is acceptable because the schema already fully describes it. Baseline 3 applies here.

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 identifies the tool as preparing readable text for a 24-hour off-chain reservation, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from other tools by explicitly stating it is not an NFT claim or transaction, separating it from sibling tools like prepare_agent_entry_claim and prepare_mainnet_buy.

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 clearly: use this tool when you need to prepare human-readable text for a 24-hour off-chain reservation. It provides exclusions, stating it is not for NFT claims or transactions, which helps the agent avoid misuse. It could be stronger by naming a specific alternative tool, but the guidance is sufficient.

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