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

It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool builds an unsigned transaction, so it does not broadcast anything. It also explains what functions are generated for ERC20 vs ERC721/ERC1155, going beyond the annotations. The annotations already declared idempotentHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those, but it could have explicitly said 'does not submit the transaction' for extra clarity.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then dependency context, then an actionable tip. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or unnecessary restatement of the input schema.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when it should be used, which sibling tool should be called first, and how different asset types are handled. Given the full input schema and output schema, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping asset_type to approve(spender, amount) vs setApprovalForAll(operator, true), and by explaining when amount is ignored. It mostly reinforces schema details rather than adding brand-new parameter semantics, so a 4 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 opening verb+resource 'Build an unsigned approval transaction' is specific and accurately captures the tool's purpose. It further distinguishes token-standard behavior (approve vs setApprovalForAll) and names the dependent write tools (write_account_deposit/write_account_add_liquidity), separating it from sibling account/pool operations.

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 states it is required before write_account_deposit or write_account_add_liquidity when depositing from wallet, and explicitly advises checking read_wallet_allowances first and skipping if the allowance is sufficient. This provides both a trigger condition and a clear alternative/precheck routing rule.

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