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

Even though readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already protect against misuse, the description adds crucial context by stating the tool never signs or submits and only returns unsigned calls. The word “bounded” also adds meaningful safety context about the WETH approval scope that annotations do not capture.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary operation is stated first, and the crucial non-execution caveat is included immediately after, so an agent sees the most decision-relevant information without parsing filler.

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?

The essential risks of this kind of tool—acting like it executes a trade when it only constructs unsigned call data—are directly addressed. The schema and output schema cover the remaining structural detail, making this definition complete for safe agent use.

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 input schema already documents tokenId, buyer, priceWeth, and deadline. The description adds the general note about bounded WETH approval and one NFH, but it does not provide parameter-specific value beyond what the schema already states.

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 explicitly states the specific action and resource: prepare a bounded WETH approval plus a makeOffer() call for one NFH. This clearly distinguishes it from buy, accept-offer, listing, and cancel siblings, and the phrase “Returns unsigned calls” clarifies the exact deliverable.

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 intended use is clear: when the agent needs an unsigned WETH offer prepared for a single NFH on the Ethereum marketplace. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as prepare_mainnet_buy or prepare_mainnet_accept_offer, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is not ambiguous.

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