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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description reveals the core behavioral contract: fail closed, produce no calls, return unsigned material only, and never sign or submit. This is exactly the kind of nuanced behavior an agent needs to trust the tool.

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 deliver the failure mode, the rationale, and the signing/submission safety guarantee with no wasted words. The fail-closed behavior is front-loaded.

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 present and annotations already covering safety, the description only needs to explain what happens before any output structure is relevant. It does that well; the only missing piece is a pointer to when an alternative accept-path tool should be selected.

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?

The input schema already documents tokenId, seller, and buyer at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat their meanings. It adds no parameter-specific semantics, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 behavior: fail closed with a named error code, produce no calls, and never sign or submit. It clearly distinguishes this as a safety gate for NFH Ethereum offer acceptance rather than a regular preparation path.

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 context is clear: this tool applies to accepting offers on Ethereum mainnet where the underlying contract does not bind the reviewed economics. It does not explicitly name an alternative accept-flow tool to route to, so it stops short of a 5.

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