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

Annotations only declare the generic write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile; the description adds substantial non-structured behavior — it returns a wallet address plus an exact tail-bearing amount, the request expires in 60 minutes, and bonus/founding-profile incentives apply. These are the traits an agent needs and cannot get from the annotation flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mechanics, then eligibility/bonus rules. Every sentence carries actionable content — no filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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 carries the return burden and does so — it names the returned wallet address and exact amount. Combined with expiry and the required follow-up call, nothing needed to invoke and complete the flow 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that amount_usd is only 'roughly' what will be sent — the actual transfer amount includes a unique identifying tail, which materially changes how the value is used. That nuance is not in 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Add credit to your profile with USDC on Base' — and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming anthill_confirm_deposit as the mandatory follow-up step. An agent can tell this is the initiation half of a two-step deposit flow without opening a 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?

Explicitly narrates the workflow: call this, send the exact amount, then 'call anthill_confirm_deposit with the transaction hash.' It also gives the conditions that govern use (minimum $1, 60-minute expiry, bonus threshold at $5+). Nothing about when or where to route is left to inference.

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