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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld, but the description adds high-value context they don't carry: it returns an unsigned transaction plus a review link and 'never signs', which is the key safety property of a prepare tool. It does not state required approvals or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the return/behavior note. No wasted filler; slightly dense phrasing but every part earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully explains the return (unsigned transaction and review link). Combined with sibling naming and annotations, an agent has enough to call it, though approval/prerequisite context is missing.

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 50% - shares and maxSlippageBps are documented in the schema, while vault/wallet are not. The description reinforces the shares-omission default ('everything it can pay when shares is omitted') but adds little beyond the schema and says nothing about vault/wallet or slippage.

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 ('Prepare withdrawing from a partner vault') and distinguishes itself from the deposit/reclaim siblings by naming the vault-withdrawal action. An agent can identify it as the earn-side redemption flow without opening the schema.

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 'Prepare' naming and 'never signs' imply this is the pre-signing step of a multi-step flow, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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