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

Annotations declare openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds critical behavior beyond them: nothing moves until the user sends funds, crediting is automatic, private keys are never requested, sandbox addresses are fictitious, and a full error taxonomy with corrective actions is listed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return values, then safety warnings and errors. It is on the long side, but nearly every sentence carries actionable content (sandbox warning, error codes, fee note), so little is wasted.

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 still enumerates the return fields, the post-call flow, sandbox behavior, and the error set with remediation, which is everything an agent needs to call and follow up correctly.

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% (baseline 3), and the description still adds meaning: the exact amount_to_send with trailing decimals identifies the deposit, the amount threshold relates to min_deposit, and network must come from lunium_get_usdt_wallet. The withdrawal-fee note clarifies what 'amount' effectively must be.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Opens a deposit request' for USDT/USDC) and immediately names the returned fields (amount_to_send, address, network_name, expires_at), letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like lunium_get_usdt_wallet or lunium_list_usdt_deposits.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and prerequisites: requires an API key, use only networks listed by lunium_get_usdt_wallet, follow up with lunium_list_usdt_deposits, and use sandbox=true for fictitious addresses. It also states when-not ('you never send crypto yourself') and the exchange-fee caveat.

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