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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it warns on expiry under a day, distance from Fabrica's estimate, or collateral status; discloses that signing sells the property; and describes prepared-not-sent behavior, the 15-minute expiry, and that the server holds no keys. The destructiveHint=false annotation is consistent because the tool only prepares a request.

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 action and scope, and every clause carries information (warnings, lifecycle, key custody). It is dense but lengthy; slightly more than needed for one tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still fully explains the returned signRequest shape (summary, warnings, signLink, expiresAt, payload null), the storage behavior, and the human signing step. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 already 100%, and much of the description's parameter detail (wallet is the signer, orderHash comes from get_land_order_book) duplicates the schema's own text. No new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is right.

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+resource: 'Prepare accepting an open offer' on a property the wallet holds, with the exact source of orderHash (get_land_order_book). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings make_land_offer, cancel_land_order and buy_land.

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?

States preconditions (offer must be open, wallet must hold the token) and the outcome (signing sells the property), plus what happens next. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it falls just short of 5.

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