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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context beyond them: the artifact is 'unsigned', it 'never signs or submits', and caller approval is required. That clarifies the human-in-the-loop boundary, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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 filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the safety constraint follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, but with both parameters undocumented and no link to the prepare/verify sibling workflow, the definition is only minimally complete. The safety disclosure is the strongest part; the operational context around it is thin.

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 says nothing about either parameter. An agent gets no hint that session_id is a UUID session handle or that access_token is an auth credential, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Prepare') plus a qualified resource ('bounded unsigned Solana source action'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the destination and CCTP siblings via the word 'source'. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the routing.

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 only process guidance is 'Requires caller approval', which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing states when to choose this over assetfare_prepare_destination_action or assetfare_prepare_cctp_action, nor what must exist beforehand (e.g., an active session).

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