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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive), and the description adds traits those annotations cannot convey: the 30-minute link expiry, the non-custodial escrow model where only the user's wallet can stop or withdraw, the conditional unsigned-transaction return, and the risk-gate refusal behavior. That is substantial behavioral disclosure.

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 core action and output, and every clause carries information (outputs, custody model, refusal condition). It is dense in a single marathon sentence, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, covering both the signing link and the conditional raw transaction. Together with custody, expiry, and refusal behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

With 75% schema coverage and a self-documenting enum, the schema does much of the work, but the description still adds meaning: token must come from list_bot_presets, budget_usd is the ETH allocation in dollars, and supplying wallet is what triggers the raw transaction to be returned.

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?

Names a specific verb ('prepares') and resource ('ETH-funded spot grid or infinity grid bot'), and scopes it to a token drawn from list_bot_presets. It also states what the call produces (a signing link, and optionally an unsigned transaction), which separates it cleanly from prepare_trade and quote_trade.

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 routes the agent to list_bot_presets for valid tokens and to the risk gate for token eligibility, giving clear context for when the call will succeed. However, it never states when to prefer a different sibling (e.g. prepare_trade for a one-off swap) or what to do when the risk gate refuses a bot.

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