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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and meets it by disclosing critical behaviors: the server generates the receiving address, the amount includes cents, the address must be relayed verbatim, and the response flow (verify_usdt_deposit later). It does not specify the exact response format, but this is partially covered by the dense operational detail. A 4 is justified because the description proactively surfaces unusual behaviors (unique cents, generated address) that are not obvious from the schema.

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 exceptionally well-structured: the first three lines cover core purpose and critical warning, followed by a clear 'PREREQUISITE', 'WHEN TO USE', 'AFTERWARDS', and 'PREFER INSTEAD' structure. Every sentence carries actionable information, and the Vietnamese line is a translation for usability, not fluff. It's dense but not bloated.

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 deposit tool with 3 simple parametersched and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: prerequisites, supported networks, critical behavior (address generation), post-call actions (verify), and alternatives. No schema or annotations are needed to make a correct call. It is comprehensive for the given complexity.

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 schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by clarifying that 'network' defaults to trc20 (schema also says, but description reinforces), and adds the subtle point that amount_usd is whole-number only and the system appends cents. It doesn't add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the reinforcement of the 'unique cents' behavior for amount_usd adds value, warranting a slight bump.

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 purpose is explicitly stated with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('USDT deposit order'), and it clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_binance_deposit' by mentioning the alternative for Binance app users. The description also details supported networks and key requirements, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('the user wants to deposit on-chain USDT'), BEFORE/AFTERWARDS flow with prerequisite (call topup_guide first), and an alternative ('Prefer instead: create_binance_deposit'). It also warns against inventing wallet addresses, giving clear usage boundaries.

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