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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, non-open-world), the description discloses fee structure (no Panda fee), a real constraint (subject to the vault's liquidity), and the full output shape (ordered unsigned txs, one EIP-5792 batch, simulated from the wallet, plus a sign_url for a human owner). It also clarifies the critical non-effect 'Nothing is sent', which is exactly the context an agent needs before treating this as read-only.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then each following clause earns its place: fee, liquidity constraint, return format, and the 'nothing is sent' caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well — it enumerates the returned artifacts and their ordering/batching, notes simulation from the wallet, and provides the sign_url path for human signing. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 both parameters (wallet pattern, amount_usdc with 'all' option) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates destination and source, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb (withdraw), resource (USDC), and exact source (Steakhouse Prime USDC curated vault) and destination (the wallet). Naming the specific vault clearly separates this from siblings like build_vault_withdraw and build_old_vault_withdraw without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied through the specific vault name; there is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative (e.g., why this vs. build_vault_withdraw). The agent can infer scope, but nothing states prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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