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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description's '[write]' label reinforces but does not extend this. It adds the useful behavioral note that uid is session-resolved, but does not disclose side effects like whether a new address is generated or previous addresses invalidated. Thus it provides limited added transparency beyond 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?

Two sentences, each carrying essential information; the first states the action, the second packs two critical constraints. No wasted words, and the key info 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the most important constraint (amount threshold), and the session-bound behavior, while the schema handles parameter details. It does not describe the return value, but that's implied by 'Fetch'. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful negative constraint ('do not pass uid—it is resolved from the session') and reiterates the amount threshold, giving the agent extra guidance beyond the schema. This justifies a 4.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies exact resource 'Gate exchange deposit address' scoped to the session-bound Gate UID, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dex_wallet_get_addresses. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving a Gate deposit address tied to the session-bound UID, and includes direct constraints (amount ≥ min_deposit_amount, do not pass uid). However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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