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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by clarifying the human-in-the-loop signing flow and stating exactly what the plan comprises. It stops short of describing size/rate limits or output format details, but the key behavioral contract is disclosed.

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?

One dense sentence with a colon-delimited list that front-loads the purpose and ends with the most important caveat about not signing. No filler or redundancy.

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 present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three outputs an agent will receive (steps, public/private disclosure, app link). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with defaults and enum values already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., amount formatting or asset resolution nuances) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Plan a deposit into a private Gloam balance (a shield)') and immediately enumerates what the plan contains (steps, public/private breakdown, app link). This clearly separates it from siblings like gloam_create_payment_request and gloam_vault_stats without needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool's role with 'Does not sign or send anything; you sign in your own wallet in the app,' which tells the agent this is a pre-execution planning step, not a state-changing call. It gives a clear condition for use but does not name a sibling alternative for the actual execution path.

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