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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully reconciles that with the fact that it produces unsigned approval-plus-deposit transactions that are simulated from the wallet and never broadcast. It adds the two-step approval-then-deposit behavior and slippage acceptance, but says nothing about what happens when simulation fails or whether the caller must hold balance/allowance beforehand.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the verb/resource is front-loaded. Readability suffers from stacked parentheticals such as '(the feed's price for the first deposit, which sets the farm's price)', which take effort to parse but do carry 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?

With five fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers input combination logic, ratio derivation, approval ordering, and simulation. The main remaining gap is the shape of the return value — an agent is told it gets unsigned transactions but not how they are packaged or how failures surface.

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 genuine meaning: that usdg and stock are interchangeable via the farm ratio, that slip_bps governs how far the accepted share amount may drift under the quote, and that the first deposit's ratio comes from the feed price. It does not clarify units or defaults beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource — building unsigned transactions that put USDG and a stock into a farm — which cleanly separates it from farm_withdraw and farms. The 'unsigned transactions' framing also signals it is a prepare step rather than an executor, though the phrase 'its farm' leans on the symbol parameter to identify which farm, rather than saying so outright.

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 gives real usage rules: supply usdg, stock, or both, and the unspecified side is derived from the farm's ratio, with the first deposit priced off the feed. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings (e.g. farm_withdraw) or any preconditions such as needing an existing position, so context is clear but alternatives are not named.

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