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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the non-obvious behavioral context that the tool only produces order terms — the actual assembling, signing, and posting happens in wallet tooling. This helps an agent understand the tool does not broadcast or mutate on-chain state, without contradicting any annotation.

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 with zero filler. The exact scope is front-loaded — the key resources (OpenSea, WETH, traits) come before the support detail about wallet tooling, and every clause earns its place.

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, return-value documentation is not needed. The specified annotations and description together give a complete picture: a read-only preparation step for a trait-based criteria order. Minor gaps include the undefined 'NFH' concept and no guidance on how the prepared result should be consumed, but these do not block a correct invocation.

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 80%, so most parameters (traits, endTime, offerer, priceEth, startTime) are already described adequately in the schema. The description adds little beyond the meaning of 'all supplied traits', which is consistent with the schema's AND-combined semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Prepare), a specific resource (OpenSea criteria-order terms for a WETH offer), and an exact selection condition (matching all supplied traits). The second sentence clarifies that the tool only prepares terms while wallet tooling assembles, signs, and posts, which distinguishes it from the many prepare_* siblings.

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 use case is implied: this tool is for trait-matched criteria orders on OpenSea for WETH. However, there is no explicit when/how-not-to guidance or alternative routing (e.g., 'for token-specific offers use prepare_mainnet_offer instead'), which matters given a sibling family of 70+ prepare_* tools. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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