prepare_transactions_tezos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that output is unsigned/forged bytes plus fee details, that signing happens locally (so keys are never sent), and that credits are consumed per action. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, but the core non-destructive 'build only' trait is clearly conveyed.

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?

Purpose and the critical next-step are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then actions and credits are cleanly sectioned. The credits subsection and its 'indicative only' disclaimer add bulk that is only marginally relevant to invocation, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

For a 10-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential gaps: what is returned (forged bytes + fees), the signing/broadcast handoff, and per-action credit costs. It could say more about required permissions or address prerequisites, but it 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including enum values, defaults, and per-action requirements. The description's action list adds a small semantic gloss on the three enum values but no unit, format, or conditional detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Build unsigned Tezos operations ready for signing', which names the chain and the exact artifact produced. The action list (native XTZ, FA1.2, FA2 transfers) makes it unambiguous against the chain-specific siblings (prepare_transactions_evm, prepare_transactions_tron, etc.).

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 a clear workflow context: prepare, then 'sign locally and broadcast via broadcast_signed_transaction', which tells the agent where this fits in the sequence. It does not explicitly state when to pick this over a sibling chain tool or any exclusions, but the chain scoping in the name plus the flow is sufficient to route correctly.

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