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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool returns UNSIGNED transaction data for the owner's own wallet, that it simulates first and refuses on revert, and that it never signs or sends. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before committing to a prepare_* call, and they are consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it sends, what is excluded, and what it returns. The scope constraint is front-loaded before the behavioral notes, with no wasted phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly characterizes the return value (unsigned tx data) and the failure mode (refused if simulation would revert), and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters (token default USDG, amount as decimal or "all", account address) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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+resource (send idle tokens from the account to its owner) and draws the key boundary that collateral in a position is not idle, which differentiates it from the withdraw_collateral siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so the distinction from prepare_mandate_owner_withdraw_collateral must be inferred.

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?

"Send idle tokens" plus "Collateral in a position is not idle" gives an explicit when and a when-not condition. It does not name the alternative tool an agent should call for collateral, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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