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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantive traits: fees never assumed and always taken from the quote, the receiving address signing exactly one transaction only when new or lacking a trustline, the shared deposit address across four chains, and the 1:1 USDC/USDT rule. These are genuine behavioral disclosures not present in 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the definition then runs long and mixes in flow mechanics that belong to sibling tools (signing, deposit.amountPolicy handling, payBefore timing). For a zero-parameter capability query, several sentences drift beyond this tool's own scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description does important work by enumerating what the response contains — onboarding flag, source chains/assets, Stellar USDC output, usdGas XLM amounts, per-order limits. That covers the return shape well enough for an agent to consume it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description's references to deposit.amountPolicy and usdGas options describe returned content rather than inputs, so no compensation is needed.

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 returns current ROZO Funding API capabilities (onboarding status, source chains, USDC assets, gas options, limits) — a specific resource with an implied discovery verb. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling supported_coins, whose remit overlaps with the chain/asset listing here.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Read-only, creates nothing' suggests this is the discovery step before create_deposit_order or stellar_wallet_quote, but no when-to-use/when-not or explicit alternative is named. An agent must infer that this precedes the ordering tools.

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