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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing is sent onchain at call time, that a signRequest is returned and stored, that the sign link expires in 15 minutes, that payload is currently null, and that the server holds no keys and submits nothing. This is unusually rich disclosure for a non-read-only, open-world tool.

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 safety-critical scope and preconditions are front-loaded, and the sentences are information-dense. There is mild redundancy around the sign-then-transact sequence ('Signing sends an onchain transaction', 'Prepared, not sent', 'nothing happens until then'), which could be tightened.

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 carries the full burden for return values and does so: signRequest contents (summary, warnings, signLink, expiresAt, payload) are enumerated. For a multi-step prepare/sign tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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. The description clarifies that orderHash maps to orderId in get_land_order_book and that wallet is the signing address, but the schema already states both; the added value over the structured schema is marginal.

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 verb and resource ('Prepare buying a property at its open listing') plus the network (Sepolia Testnet) and the exact identifier source (orderHash = orderId from get_land_order_book). This clearly separates it from make_land_offer and accept_land_offer, which involve different flows.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite listing states it checks (open, buyable, not own wallet, not reserved) and routes the follow-up to get_transaction_status. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over make_land_offer or accept_land_offer, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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