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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact approve amount (reward x maxDone), the two-call sequence, the swap mechanism, the 24 h hold, the 7-day open window, one-completion-per-wallet, the signing wallet, and refusal conditions. readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a tool that only returns unsigned calls rather than executing them.

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?

Front-loaded with the return value and the call sequence, then mission mechanics, then refusal conditions. Dense but every clause carries operational detail; a slight cost in readability from long compound sentences.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the returned calls, the signer, and the failure modes. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the precise encoding of the unsigned call objects is left unspecified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real relational meaning: approve is EXACTLY reward x maxDone, and hold is the raw-unit minimum held for 24 h. This ties the parameters together in a way the schema alone 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?

States a specific outcome (returns the unsigned approve+postTask calls that post a mission on the Block Missions board) and scopes it to a block. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tblock_plan_swap or tblock_plan_birth, which plan other actions.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions (REFUSED while the board contract is not deployed, or when the block has no TokenizedBlock pool) and characterizes the mission semantics. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when to prefer this over the other plan_* tools, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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