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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the transaction is unsigned/non-custodial, it is all-or-nothing, it takes no amount, and it should be built rather than permission-asked. These details complement the readOnlyHint=true annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Four sentences with no fluff: scope constraints come first, then the action, then the critical all-or-nothing and prerequisite behavior. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is built, the full-position behavior, the prerequisite get_safety_module call, and the non-custodial flow. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description clarifies that 'user' is the stkGHO holder and explains why no amount parameter exists, but it does not add significant format-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 that moves a wallet's stkGHO out of the Safety Module and into the sGHO vault.' It also adds scope constraints ('v3 only, Ethereum only') and the all-or-nothing behavior, clearly distinguishing it from sibling prepare_* tools.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: call get_safety_module first and quote the legacy stkGHO balance before signing. It also states v3/Ethereum-only applicability and that the transaction covers the entire position, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out 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.