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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that the hub cannot generate an address because it holds no signing keys, and that it returns an address provided by custody or reports missing requirements. This meaningfully discloses the tool's operational behavior and failure mode beyond what the name or schema shows.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information: the first states the action and goal, the second explains a key behavioral constraint. It is easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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?

Despite a clear purpose, the description leaves important operational details unexplained: it does not specify what each parameter means, what values are expected, or what the response structure will be. With no annotations, no output schema, and three schema parameters at 0% coverage, an agent may still struggle to know exactly what to provide, especially for the required 'owner' field.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It provides general context—'your own' hints at owner, 'from a chain' hints at network—but it does not explain the exact meaning or accepted values of owner, asset, or network. The required owner parameter is especially underspecified, and no enums or defaults exist in the schema to help.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Ask for a deposit address of your own, to fund this account from a chain.' It names a specific resource (deposit address), the purpose (funding the account), and distinguishes itself from related tools like payout_address by focusing on incoming funds. The added context about custody and the hub not holding signing keys further clarifies what the tool does and what it cannot do.

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?

The description gives a clear use context: use this tool when you need an address to deposit funds into the account from a chain. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the funding-oriented purpose is specific enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage. No misleading guidance is present.

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