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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the operation's key behaviors: scans the blockchain, credits only when a matching transfer is found, is idempotent, and can be polled every ~15s. It makes side effects and retry safety explicit.

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?

Information is front-loaded with prerequisites and usage guidance in labeled sectionsfer to inspect balance afterwards.' The repetition in Vietnamese adds length, but the structure is clear.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, prerequisites, side effects, polling behavior, and alternatives. An agent has enough context to invoke it successfully without consulting other tools.

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, but the description adds meaningful usage context: order_code and claim_token come from create_usdt_deposit, and method='hash' + tx_hash enables hash-based verification. This elevates it above schema-only documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check / confirm') and resource ('a USDT deposit created by create_usdt_deposit'). It clearly distinguishes itself from verify_binance_deposit and relates to sibling create_usdt_deposit.

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 states when to use, prerequisites, polling cadence, and includes a PREFER INSTEAD section naming verify_binance_deposit, get_my_balance, and wallet_history. This is strong selection guidance.

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