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

Annotations declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, and not read-only, and the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that it never signs or submits and needs caller approval. That clarifies the prepare-only boundary beyond what the structured hints convey, though it says nothing about failure modes, expiry, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed immediately by the safety boundary. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a write-adjacent preparation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers the safety posture and the resulting artifact but omits prerequisites, ordering relative to the source step, and the meaning of the three required inputs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description explains none of the three required parameters (access_token, session_id, idempotency_key). Names are largely self-explanatory, but with zero schema documentation the description should have compensated for formats or reuse expectations and does not.

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') and two concrete artifacts: an exact-cap permit and an unsigned ERC-4337 destination settlement plan. It is clearly distinguishable from the source-side and CCTP siblings by the 'destination' scope, though it relies on domain jargon an agent may not resolve without other tool context.

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?

It states a constraint ('requires caller approval') but never says when to call this versus assetfare_prepare_source_action or assetfare_prepare_cctp_action, nor the ordering between them. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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