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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: it returns an unsigned transaction for the wallet to sign rather than executing the withdrawal, and it explains that lent-out funds come back as vault shares that must be redeemed on Supply later. It also discloses availability guarantees ("never paused, no price feed needed"). The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so this is strong supplementary disclosure rather than the full burden.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a dense parenthetical about vault shares and the phrase "Run from the wallet first" is ambiguous. The content mostly earns its place, yet the phrasing could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 transaction-preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (an unsigned transaction), what happens to borrowed funds, and availability constraints. The only real omission is what the agent should do with the unsigned transaction afterward, which is left implicit.

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 descriptions for symbol, wallet, percent, and slip_bps already carry the parameter meaning. The description adds only a loose restatement of percent ("part or all") and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: an unsigned transaction that removes part or all of a wallet's money from a farm. That clearly separates it from farm_deposit and the plain withdraw sibling, although it never names those siblings explicitly and the caller must infer the distinction from the title.

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?

"Run from the wallet first to show what comes back now" hints at a preview-first workflow, but the guidance is cryptic and never says when to pick farm_withdraw over withdraw or supply. Usage is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to guess at the sequencing and the alternatives.

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