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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint already provided, the description adds valuable extra behavior: the closed-gate failure mode and the fact that no approval or transaction is returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations, though it does not explain why or what happens on success.

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 tightly written sentences carry real information: one defines the resource and action, the other adds the key failure mode and return limitation. There is no fluff, filler, or repeated schema content.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage), output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral risks an agent needs to know: when it can fail and what it will not return. The only slight gap is not expanding on what 'FWA action' or 'royalty gate' mean, but they are domain concepts likely clear from other TokenWorks tooling.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully explains all eight parameters and their constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The enums and patterns are documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: PREPARE an INSPECT or REFUSE record for an FWA action. It also distinguishes the tool from the many prepare_* siblings by mentioning TokenWorks/FWA and adding the unique caveat about returning no approval or transaction. It could be slightly clearer about how 'prepare' here relates to the decision enum including 'prepare'.

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 gives a concrete failure condition: PREPARE fails while the royalty gate is closed. It also explicitly states what the tool does not return, which helps an agent avoid using it when an approval or signed transaction is expected. It stops short of naming a preferred sibling alternative, so it is not a 5.

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