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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description reinforces and expands this by explaining the non-custodial unsigned-transaction behavior and that building commits the user to nothing. It also discloses the allowance/ApprovalRequired flow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value. It front-loads scope and the core action, then flows into parameter rules and the approval edge case without filler or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers chain and version constraints, both actions, parameter semantics, the max flag, recipient behavior, and the ApprovalRequired result path. This is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: amount means GHO on deposit but sGHO shares on withdraw, max:true omits amount, recipient defaults to sender, and only applicable arguments should be sent. This significantly reduces ambiguity for an agent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to deposit GHO into the sGHO vault or withdraw from it.' It also narrows scope with 'v3 only, Ethereum only' and clearly separates the two actions. This distinguishes it from sibling data/read tools like get_sgho_vault and get_sgho_preview.

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 clear eligibility conditions (v3, Ethereum) and decision rules: amount is GHO for deposit but sGHO shares for withdraw, max:true omits amount, recipient is optional, and approval transactions must be submitted in order. It references get_sgho_preview for conversions, but does not explicitly name alternative prepare_* tools or state when not to use this tool.

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