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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is sent', so there is no contradiction. It goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (unsigned transactions in signing order, an EIP-5792 batch form), that they are simulated from the wallet, and that a sign_url is provided for a human owner.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the batch framing, then the exception rule, then the return/safety note. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains exactly what comes back (ordered unsigned txs, optional EIP-5792 batch, sign_url) and that nothing is broadcast, which is what an agent needs to chain the next step. The $5 threshold and simulation detail round out the guidance.

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 wallet, token_id, and auto_compound are already fully documented. The description only reinforces wallet ownership ('simulated from the wallet') and does not add format or default semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 compound action (withdraw an old-vault position and deposit into the new vault) and anchors it to the familiar website Migrate button, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name how it differs from the sibling build_vault_move or build_old_vault_withdraw, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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?

Gives a clear use case (the Migrate button flow) and an explicit when-not rule: positions under $5 should use a withdraw path instead. The condition is concrete, though it describes the alternative generically rather than naming the sibling tool to call.

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