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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the output is unsigned, that funds are not automatically returned, that the user must review/sign/broadcast, and that Aletheia does not hold keys or dispatch transactions. These are meaningful behavioral boundaries.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by workflow context and user responsibility. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repeated schema content or filler.

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 3-parameter calldata-preparation tool, the description covers the claim scenario, the unsigned nature of the output, and the user's signing/broadcasting responsibility. It could slightly expand on what the returned 'blueprint' contains, but the essential context is present.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented clearly. The description's 'given token' and 'your address' wording loosely mirrors token_address and claimant_address but adds no substantive semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Builds'), a resource ('unsigned transaction blueprint'), and the exact purpose ('reclaiming funds held by the protocol after a losing bid'). The 'when you are outbid' scenario clearly distinguishes this refund-claim tool from sibling tools like prepare_claim_collateral_calldata.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when the user was outbid and their funds remain claimable. It also explains that the tool only encodes the claim and the user must sign/broadcast. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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