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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool 'Returns calldata for the agent wallet' (indicating it does not execute the transaction itself) and mentions a 15% performance fee. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation (constructing calldata) or has side effects, nor does it mention any permission requirements or failure modes. It provides some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the return type (calldata), and the third adds the fee caveat. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the action, the return format, and the fee policy. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance (when to use vs. alternatives) and any note about potential side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and the clear 'returns calldata' statement, it covers most of what an agent needs to know.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive comments for both parameters ('shares' as a raw uint256 string from get_balance, and 'agentAddress' as the owner). The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the calibration rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Withdraw from the Forge Treasury vault by redeeming shares' – a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the output ('Returns calldata for the agent wallet'), which distinguishes it from siblings like deposit or claim_forge. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool is easily differentiated from its siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage (redeeming shares) but does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or mention any alternative tools. For example, it does not say 'use deposit to add shares' or 'use claim_forge for rewards'. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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