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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real context: permission gate, location-independence, and audit-log tracking. It stops short of noting failure modes such as insufficient treasury balance or treasury access restrictions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and three parenthetical qualifiers, each of which earns its place (permission, environment, auditability). No redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: direction, permission, and environment. Missing only side-effect detail such as whether the treasury balance is validated or what the return looks like.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both fields. The description adds no meaning beyond it — notably it does not clarify what the schema's generic 'deposit or withdraw' amount wording means in this withdrawal direction, nor any bounds beyond the schema's minimum of 1. 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 (transfer/withdraw) and both endpoints of the resource flow: faction treasury -> your wallet. This directionality cleanly separates it from the sibling faction_deposit_credits without the agent needing to open either 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?

Gives clear preconditions: requires `manage_treasury` permission, and works both docked and in space, which an agent needs to know before attempting the call. It does not explicitly name faction_deposit_credits as the inverse alternative, but the stated direction makes the choice obvious.

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