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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('never moves money', 'Info only'), and explains what happens when api_key is passed (shows balance and shortfall). It could mention rate limits or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 dense but well-organized with clear labels (WHEN TO USE, PREFER INSTEAD) and a bilingual note. It earns its length by providing routing and behavioral context, though the Vietnamese repetition adds some redundancy.

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 read-only informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and parameter effects. It lacks details about the exact response format, but the tool's simple nature and explicit read-only guarantee make it sufficiently complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for api_key (shows balance & shortfall) and amount (computes shortfall), which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 applies because coverage is high.

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 description clearly states the tool explains how to add funds, lists active deposit methods/networks and min/max, and explicitly says it is info-only and never moves money. It distinguishes itself from deposit creation tools and other siblings.

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?

Explicitly says WHEN TO USE: call this FIRST before create_usdt_deposit or create_binance_deposit, and PREFER INSTEAD alternatives like how_to_start and get_my_balance. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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