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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the paused-state failure mode, that it constructs exactly two calls (approve then redeem) with a 0.5% minimum out and partner ID 2, and that it 'sends nothing itself.' The lack of side effects is confirmed and even explained.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: failure condition, construction steps, default behavior, output nature, and side-effect disclaimer. The important caveat is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 does cover the side-effect profile ('Sends nothing itself') and the nature of the returned information (whether USDC arrives at once or on Autopilot's next pass). It could still clarify the shape/contents of the two calls it returns, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents amount, address, and receiver. The description's only parameter note ('Leave out the amount to withdraw everything') simply restates the amount schema description, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific action ('Builds the two calls that withdraw from Obento') and the exact resources involved (obUSD approval, gateway redeem to USDC). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling prepare_deposit and the read-only siblings like position or vault_status.

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?

It states a concrete condition under which the tool is unusable ('Withdrawals are closed while Obento is paused, so this returns an error') and a default behavior ('Leave out the amount to withdraw everything'). It gives clear context but never names an alternative path or what to do instead when paused.

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