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

The description indicates that the tool mutates state (destructiveHint true) by withdrawing funds. It also discloses that it returns unsigned transaction data, implying the need for a follow-up signing step. The caller control requirement (signerAddress) is stated. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint true is consistent). Could add more on side effects or reversibility.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering action, target, user roles, caller requirement, and return type. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 description provides a high-level overview of the tool's purpose and return type. Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested list) and no output schema, it adequately explains the key concepts. However, it could mention the existence of a follow-up step (sending the unsigned transaction with send_signed_transaction or send_meta_transaction) for fuller completeness, especially since siblings include these tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 80%, the descriptions already explain most parameters (e.g., list items, configId format, executionMode enum, signerAddress meaning). The tool description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is raised by the clear connection between parameters and the withdrawal action.

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 the tool's purpose: withdrawing funds from an entity's protocol treasury to the entity's treasury address. It distinguishes between sellers withdrawing proceeds and buyers withdrawing refunds. The verb 'withdraws' and resource 'funds from treasury' 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 explains when to use the tool (for sellers to withdraw proceeds, buyers to withdraw refunds) and that the caller must control the entity via signerAddress. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like deposit_funds or get_funds. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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