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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only give the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive). The description discloses the fee treatment (no Panda fee), the external dependency (market liquidity), and in detail what is produced: unsigned transactions to sign in order, an EIP-5792 batch, simulation from the wallet, and a sign_url for a human owner, plus the key guarantee 'Nothing is sent.'

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then economic/risk modifiers, then the return contract. No filler and nothing important is buried.

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 fully — transaction ordering, batching, simulation origin, and sign_url. Combined with the annotation safety profile and a fully documented 2-param schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, and the schema already explains that wallet is the Base signer/position owner and that amount_usdc accepts a number or "all". The description adds nothing further about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (withdraw), resource (USDC lent), and the exact protocol market (Morpho WETH/USDC), which cleanly separates it from build_lend_supply, build_withdraw_collateral, and the various build_vault_withdraw siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The market and the 'lent USDC' framing imply this is the exit leg of a Morpho lending position, and the liquidity caveat hints at when it may fail, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. build_lend_supply for the opposite direction). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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