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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the important boundary that it only formats an EIP-191 request and never signs or publishes, which clarifies offline behavior without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety boundary. There is no redundant phrasing or information already present in the annotations or schema.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, this is usable for a read-only request-preparation tool. However, with 13 parameters and only 38% schema description coverage, the tool definition leaves several parameter meanings and relationships unexplained, so the contextual picture is incomplete.

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 low at 38%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'per-agent reward' and 'expiry', leaving payers confusion about maxAgents, rewardType, missionKind, compensation, rewardAmount, rewardCurrency, and expiresInHours, which are not described in the schema either.

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 action and resource: 'prepare readable EIP-191 work-request text' with reward and expiry. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish itself from the many other prepare_* tools; 'never signs or publishes' helps disambiguate.

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 useful workflow context: the owner reviews and signs afterwards, publish verifies ownership, and this tool never signs or publishes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the many sibling prepare_* tools, nor any preconditions beyond the general owner-of-token assumption.

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