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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: the annotations only say readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, while the description explains this is a *prepare* step producing an unsigned transaction, that it is simulated from the wallet, and that sending rights differ for owner vs agent. It does not explain what happens after (signing/broadcast) or failure modes, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information (asset forms, amount vs all, permission split, simulation note). The first sentence is dense and slightly run-on with colon-separated lists, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter mutation-preparation tool with no output schema, it covers the important things: what is produced (an unsigned transaction), what it acts on, and who may send where. The gap is the post-call contract — what the returned transaction looks like and that it must be signed and submitted — which is only hinted at via the `wallet` schema text.

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 every parameter, and the description largely restates it (USDG default, 'all: true', 'to' defaults to the owner). The only genuine addition is the owner-vs-agent routing permission attached to `to`. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb + resource: it builds an unsigned transaction that takes money out of a trade account, and names the asset forms (USDG default, ticker, token address). The 'trade account' scoping implicitly separates it from the plain `withdraw`/`farm_withdraw` siblings, but it never names them, so the distinction stays implicit rather than explicit.

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 conveys the permission model (owner may send anywhere, agent only to the owner) which implicitly tells an agent whether this call is viable, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not and never mentions alternatives like `withdraw`, `withdraw_cover`, or `account_status` for checking balances first. Usage is implied from context rather than stated.

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