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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the validation checks performed, that open listings trigger warnings, that the transfer is irreversible once confirmed, that the server holds no keys and submits nothing, and that the signRequest expires in 15 minutes with payload null. The 'final once confirmed' note is a useful caution alongside destructiveHint=false without actually contradicting it (ownership moves, nothing is deleted).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and the sibling exclusions come first, then checks, then the return shape. A few redundancies creep in ('Prepared, not sent' is effectively restated as 'nothing happens until then'), and it reads as one long paragraph rather than a scannable structure, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 exists, yet the description still enumerates the returned signRequest fields (summary, warnings, signLink, expiresAt, payload), which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack. Combined with the validation list and the signing handoff, nothing needed to call this correctly or interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the linked-account restriction on recipient and the signer constraint on wallet. The description restates those constraints rather than adding new meaning, and says nothing about slug vs tokenId identification. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 moving a whole property the wallet holds to another account') and pins down the network and recipient constraint. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two siblings that handle sales ('a sale to someone else is list_land_for_sale or accept_land_offer'), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives (list_land_for_sale, accept_land_offer), plus preconditions the server enforces (holds outright, no loan backing, recipient differs from sender, recipient must be a linked wallet). The 'prepared, not sent' clause tells the agent this is a two-step flow requiring human signing.

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