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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool only prepares, returns an unsigned transaction plus a review link, and never signs. It stops short of saying whether repeated calls produce distinct transactions or how long the prepared transaction stays valid.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the key behavioral caveat ('never signs') placed last. No filler words.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return payload (unsigned transaction + review link), which is the most important missing piece. Remaining gaps are the undocumented wallet/vault parameters and the absence of timing or idempotency detail.

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 only 50%, and the description adds real meaning for amount by tying the raw units to the vault's asset (USDG: 6 decimals), reinforcing the schema. However, the wallet and vault parameters receive no semantic guidance beyond their hex patterns, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a deposit into a partner vault (lending)') and constrains the asset to USDG or the vault's lend asset. The deposit-vs-redeem/borrow distinction is clear from this text plus the name, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'Returns the next unsigned transaction and a review link' clause implies this is a pre-execution build step, but it never states when to call it versus gage_prepare_earn_redeem or gage_loan, nor any prerequisites (allowances, wallet funding). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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