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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it builds an unsigned transaction rather than executing one, auto-detects account version on-chain, and supports an override. It does not contradict any annotation and gives enough behavior detail for safe invocation.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, asset support, a routing caveat about a sibling tool, the approval prerequisite, and version override behavior. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 a 7-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the key practical context: when the tool is unnecessary, what prior approvals are required, which asset types are supported, and how account version is resolved. The return format is already handled by the output schema, so no critical gap remains.

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 schema already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The main description adds semantic value by clarifying supported asset classes (ERC20 and ERC721 LP positions), explaining account version auto-detection with override, and tying the approval workflow to parameter requirements. This exceeds the baseline but is not dramatically more than the schema already 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to deposit assets into an Arcadia account as collateral.' It also distinguishes itself from write_account_add_liquidity by explicitly explaining that the deposit tool is not needed before that sibling, making the tool's scope clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including a direct exclusion: 'NOT needed before write_account_add_liquidity.' It also names the exact prerequisite workflow with alternatives: check read_wallet_allowances, then use write_wallet_approve if needed. This leaves no ambiguity about the proper calling sequence.

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