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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: deprecation status and concrete rate limits (20 calls/minute, min 3s between calls). That rate-limit disclosure is valuable operational context not present in structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the deprecation tag so the agent sees the most decision-relevant fact first. No filler. Slightly dense with clauses, but every clause carries information.

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 per-chain output shape is gestured at ("broken down per supported chain") which is useful with no output schema present. But a deprecated tool with no successor named leaves an agent unsure what to do instead, and error behavior for an unsupported token is unstated.

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% and there is a single required 'token' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about token format or case sensitivity beyond the schema's own examples (USDC, USDT, etc.).

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: returns on-behalf deposit/withdraw gas costs and minimum amounts per supported chain for a given token. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_balances or get_config. It stops short of naming a sibling it competes with, but the resource is specific enough.

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?

"Use before a deposit to check the amount meets the chain's minimum" gives a concrete trigger, which is better than nothing. However, the tool is flagged [DEPRECATED] and no replacement or migration path is named, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs most here. Usage is implied but the critical when-not path is missing.

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