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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose a critical behavioral trait: the output is unsigned and this tool never signs or sends anything, which is the safety-relevant fact an agent needs. It also states each call self-describes its effect and required signer. It stops short of describing permissions or the concrete output format, keeping it off a 5.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and the non-signing guarantee. The parenthetical chain list is information-dense rather than padding, though the em-dash aside slightly interrupts flow.

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 and no annotations, so the description must do more work than it does. It establishes the tool's purpose and non-mutating nature but leaves the structure of the returned calls, signer requirements per action, and the full action-field contract to inference.

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 50 percent. The description adds real meaning for chain_id by mapping 8453 to Base, 5042 to Arc, and 36927 to the Taifoon devnet, which the schema does not explain, and it names the action kinds tied to action.kind. The individual action object fields and the return shape remain undocumented.

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+resource: it produces 'the exact UNSIGNED calls for an assurance action', and it enumerates the seven action kinds (fund-job, submit, complete, expire, reject, create-pool, back-seller). An agent can tell this is a transaction-call builder rather than an executor, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to distinguish it from tools like taifoon_judge_compose.

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 implies the usage context by noting 'nothing here signs or sends', which suggests this is a preparation step ahead of signing, but it never states when to prefer this tool over the many sibling tools or what prerequisites the caller must satisfy. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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