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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: no keys held, nothing sent by the server, orders expire at no cost if unfunded, exact amount/chain/token must be matched before expiresAt, and price locks are bounded by quoteExpiresAt. It also documents hard limits ($3500 per native invoice, $1 minimum for native ETH) and fee/spread composition.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return contents, and most sentences carry actionable constraints (expiry, exact amount, caps, ZEC exclusion). It is dense and somewhat overpacked — the FX spread and price-lock recital in the native-coin paragraph is longer than an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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, and the description fully compensates by enumerating the return payload: deposit address or Lightning invoice, exact amount in token units and base units, required memo, expiry, rozoPaymentId, and quoteExpiresAt for native coins. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning about how chainId and tokenSymbol interact — native coin vs stablecoin behavior, exact-out semantics, and chain-specific native symbols. It does not add anything about the url or email parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Creates a one-time deposit order; you pay from your own wallet') and adds the key scope distinction that the server holds no keys and sends nothing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling order-creating tools such as stellar_wallet_create_order or from its prerequisite quote_invoice, so differentiation is only partial.

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 clear operational context and several exclusions: native coins are only offered when quote_invoice lists them, ZEC on Zcash is unavailable here and must go to the external checkout, and unfunded orders simply expire at no cost. What's missing is an explicit statement of the typical call sequence (e.g., quote_invoice first, then this tool) and when to prefer a sibling instead.

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