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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses that the call only prepares an operation, that submit_operation needs owner_public_key, that the result carries operation_id and signatures_needed[], which key signs each step (owner P-256 over payload_b64 vs trading_key over EIP-712 typed_data), that every verify line should be checked against your own records first, and that submission must happen within 5 minutes. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose and destination are front-loaded in the first clause, and the operational warnings follow in a logical order. It is dense and uses parenthetical asides, but nearly every clause carries actionable information for the signing step.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the shape of the response (operation_id plus signatures_needed per step) and the full handoff to submit_operation. Missing only the all/amount_usd exclusivity and any pointer to how this differs from prepare_withdrawal.

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% and both parameters carry plain descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description does not clarify the relationship between all=true and amount_usd (mutually exclusive, and neither is required), which is the one semantic gap the schema leaves open.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: withdraw from the Earn USDC vault to your USDC on Base. It also names the natural follow-on (move_funds earn_usdc → perps), which separates this from earn_usdc_deposit. It stops short of contrasting with its nearest sibling, prepare_withdrawal, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 real operating context: the withdrawal is free, it works even while trading is paused, and if the goal is to trade you should follow with move_funds. It does not spell out when to choose this over earn_hlp_withdraw or prepare_withdrawal, nor when not to use it, so no explicit exclusion is present.

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