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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) leave the safety profile ambiguous, and the description resolves it by stating it validates inputs, returns a preview and link, and never sends anything; idempotency is also consistent with a validation-only path. It omits what a validation failure looks like and whether the preview/link expires.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, then the collateral mechanic, then the no-send guarantee. The closing 'Prepares only; never sends' is slightly redundant but reinforces the most important constraint.

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, yet the description says what comes back (preview and pre-filled Sell link), which is exactly what an agent needs. It falls short of full completeness only because the four required numeric parameters remain undocumented in units and validation rules.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the schema carries no semantics. The description adds only that strike is per token and the collateral is locked in WETH; it never clarifies amount units, premium denomination, or the expiry/fillWindow enums, leaving the coverage gap largely unfilled.

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 and resource (prepare a cash-secured put), with the seller's side and collateral mechanic (strike locked in WETH) spelled out, and a stated output (preview + pre-filled kyte.sh Sell link). This clearly separates it from siblings like prepare_covered_call and prepare_buy.

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 an explicit precondition — only on tokens with puts enabled — and states the operation is preparation-only, not execution. It stops short of routing the agent to alternatives such as prepare_covered_call for the call side or compare_offers/design_strategy before choosing a strike.

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