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

The description clearly discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction rather than broadcasting it, and that prior token approval is required. It also explains the lender-facing behavior of receiving shares that accrue interest. These details go beyond the annotations, which only provide negative hints. No contradiction exists.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core capability, the second explains the transaction mechanics, and the third covers prerequisites and related read tools. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the rich input schema, the output schema, and the explicit prerequisite and related-tool references, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. The 'unsigned' framing makes the follow-up broadcast step inferable, and no missing invocation-critical detail is apparent.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, including raw-unit examples for assets and how to obtain tranche_address. The description reinforces the context but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned deposit transaction into an Arcadia lending tranche (ERC-4626).' It further clarifies the economic mechanism—depositing the pool's underlying asset and receiving tranche shares—which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like write_pool_redeem or write_account_deposit.

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 gives explicit context for usage: it states the prerequisite of prior ERC-20 approval and points to write_wallet_approve, and directs the user to read_pool_list or read_pool_info for yield information. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, which prevents a 5.

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