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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description still adds substantial behavioral detail: it does not sign anything, uses the maxUint256 convention, includes a liquidity guard that prevents useless signatures, deducts a fixed fee, and warns about rate limits. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and failure modes.

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 long but every sentence carries decision-relevant information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It could be slightly more structured with a visible break between the core function and the caveats, but nothing is redundant and the density is appropriate for a multi-caveat tool.

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 no output schema, the description covers the most important return fields (`fee`, `expectedReceivedAmountRaw`) and the key behavioral edge cases (MAX, chain ambiguity, liquidity refusal, fee deduction). It stops short of fully specifying the returned typed-data envelope, but an agent can still correctly invoke and interpret the result without missing critical information.

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, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains the MAX/maxUint256 semantics for `amount`, why `chain` is required for shared addresses, and that `poolContract` should be sourced from get_balances. It doesn't add much for `token` or `walletAddress`, but the schema already covers those clearly.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('EIP-712 typed-data payload to sign for withdrawing from a specific pool'), and adds 'without signing anything' to distinguish it from actual withdrawal execution. It also names submit_withdrawal as the follow-up, so an agent can immediately tell this tool prepares rather than submits.

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 explicitly routes the agent to pass the resulting signature to submit_withdrawal, which is the correct next step. It gives concrete conditions for when to omit `amount` (full withdrawal), why `chain` is required despite the schema, and when the tool refuses to build typedData, giving clear 'do/don't' guidance beyond generic context.

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