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

Far beyond the annotations: it discloses the lockup, that the call succeeds while trading is paused, the 5-minute submission deadline, and precisely which key signs each step ('owner' = OWNER P-256 over payload_b64, 'trading_key' = EIP-712 over typed_data) plus the instruction to decode and verify every `verify` line. This is the security-critical context an agent needs and cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false.

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 purpose and cost/lockup come first, then the return contract and signing workflow, all in roughly two dense sentences with no filler. It is somewhat run-on with stacked em-dashes and parentheses, which costs a bit of readability.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description still documents what comes back (operation_id + signatures_needed[]) and what to do with it, closing the loop into submit_operation. For a two-parameter prepare-step tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 applies. The description does not discuss 'all' versus 'amount_usd', their mutual exclusivity, or what happens if both/neither are supplied, so it adds no meaning on top of the schema.

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?

"Withdraw from HLP back to your trading wallet" names a specific verb, source (HLP), and destination, which is exactly what separates it from earn_hlp_deposit and earn_usdc_withdraw. The parenthetical cost/lockup qualifier adds scoping detail an agent can immediately act on.

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 the key preconditions (free, only after the 4-day lockup, works while paused) and prescribes the follow-up flow: sign each step with the named signer, then call submit_operation within 5 minutes. It does not explicitly contrast with earn_usdc_withdraw or explain how to pick between 'all' and 'amount_usd', so it stops short of 5.

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