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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description is consistent and adds what is actually read (gas, USDG balance, accounts, the factory's invite gate) and the status vocabulary of the path (done, next, later, blocked). With no output schema, this disclosure of return content matters, though it stops short of stating latency, caching, or what a blocked reason looks like.

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?

Only two sentences and the purpose is front-loaded before the routing and path detail, with no filler. The first sentence is a dense run-on with nested parentheticals that takes effort to parse, which keeps it from a 5.

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-value burden and does so: it enumerates the on-chain facts reported, the single next step, and the eight-step path with its status values and path.next_step. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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% with two parameters fully documented in the schema, including the enum meanings for chain (4663 real money vs 36927 devnet) and the default for owner. The description adds essentially nothing about either parameter beyond implying the principal-linked wallet, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: reads on-chain state for a wallet's progress toward a funded vault, returning both the current standing (gas, USDG, accounts, invite gate) and the single recommended next step plus a full eight-step path. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the tools it routes to (vault_prepare, fund_with_card) rather than merely restating its name.

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?

"Call it first, and again after every step the trader signs" gives an explicit invocation cadence, and the description explains that the tool itself selects among alternatives (connect, add gas, vault_prepare, fund_with_card, ready), so the agent knows not to guess a sibling. This is direct when-to-use and how-it-relates-to-alternatives guidance.

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