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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a 'prepare' tool that builds a transaction rather than executing it, and the output schema covers what is returned. The description adds the useful dust/rounding rationale for full exits, but says nothing about what the prepared transaction includes, whether an approval is required, or any prerequisites — modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the selection heuristic second. Every clause carries 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?

Given full schema coverage, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to route correctly. The main residual gap is not clarifying the interaction with prepare_morpho_vault_withdraw for partial exits.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all six parameters including the owner/recipient defaults and share base units. The description only reinforces that shares must be an exact amount; it does not clarify the owner/recipient defaults or the shares-vs-assets distinction beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Prepare a direct Morpho Vault V2 redemption for an exact share amount.' That clearly distinguishes it from deposit and from asset-denominated operations. It stops short of naming prepare_morpho_vault_withdraw explicitly, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Prefer redeem for full exits' gives a concrete selection rule tied to a user intent (full exit), including the reason (avoiding rounding dust). It lacks a when-not-to-use statement naming the alternative withdraw tool for partial/asset-denominated exits, which would make it a 5.

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