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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates non-custodial operation, the bundled approve and deposit steps, and that no broadcast occurs. This gives the agent critical awareness that the tool only constructs a plan and does not execute it. Missing details include whether the approve action requires prior token approval or if it generates permit signatures, but overall it provides good transparency.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It avoids fluff and every phrase adds value. However, the parenthetical '(approve USDG + deposit)' could be slightly clearer (e.g., 'approving USDG and depositing') but remains effective. It strikes a good balance between brevity and information.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., plan data, transaction request). It does not specify what the plan looks like or how it should be used (e.g., signing and executing). For a plan-building tool requiring subsequent steps, this is a notable gap. Additionally, it doesn't clarify the role of the owner parameter or the approve step's prerequisites, leaving the agent without a complete picture of the workflow.

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 50% (assets and assetsHuman have descriptions, owner and approveMax do not). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'approve USDG + deposit' which relates to assets but fails to explain the role of owner or approveMax (e.g., whether approveMax sets unlimited approval). Given the coverage gap, the description should compensate with parameter clarifications but does not.

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 clearly states that the tool builds a non-custodial ERC-4626 deposit plan involving approve and deposit steps into a specific vault (Morpho Steakhouse Earn). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_morpho_withdraw_plan (opposite direction) and stocktoken_execute_plan (which broadcasts). The verb 'Build' and resource 'deposit plan' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly notes 'Does NOT broadcast', informing the agent that this is a plan-building step requiring subsequent execution (likely via stocktoken_execute_plan). It also names the specific vault and operations (approve USDG + deposit), providing clear context for when to use this tool vs. withdraw or subscribe plans. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative approaches, leaving minor ambiguity.

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