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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals the output is unsigned (requiring a separate signing step), which is important behavioral context. However, it omits approval requirements, whether the amount must be pre-approved, and any simulation behavior (the schema's simulate param defaults to true).

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 no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a transaction-building tool with no annotations.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema deposit builder, the description covers the core purpose but leaves out approval prerequisites, the unsigned-to-signed handoff, and what the returned transaction contains. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., units, approval semantics), so 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 specific verb (Build), transaction type (unsigned LINK deposit), and named target (Morpho Alpha LINK Enhanced V2 vault). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sdl_build_morpho_withdraw or sdl_build_stake_link.

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 implies when to use it (building a Morpho deposit) but does not state preconditions such as needing an existing approval or a connected wallet, nor does it point to alternatives for other Morpho actions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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