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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns calldata rather than executing the deposit, requires prior approval, mints fUSDC shares, maps strategies to legs, notes that Aggressive is not live, and gives gas estimates.

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?

Every sentence contributes a distinct, useful fact: the target, the return type, the prerequisite, the share minting behavior, strategy routing, live status, and gas costs. The purpose is front-loaded and the description stays compact despite the rich content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all call-critical details: what the tool does, what must happen first, how optional parameters behave, what the result is, and rough resource costs. No significant information needed for correct invocation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantive meaning beyond the schema by explaining profile semantics: conservative maps to Core only, balanced maps to 50/50 Core/Middle, and aggressive is not live. It also enriches the agentAddress context by clarifying the wallet receives vault shares.

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: 'Deposit USDC into a Forge Treasury vault on Base.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns signable calldata and by covering strategy profiles, so it is clearly not a read, claim, or withdrawal tool.

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 usage prerequisites ('The agent must approve USDC to the vault contract first') and explains when different strategy profiles apply. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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