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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the exact output contract: unsigned transactions returned in order and as a single EIP-5792 batch, simulated from the wallet, plus a sign_url for a human owner, and explicitly that nothing is sent. This confirms and enriches the readOnlyHint/non-destructive profile with concrete consequences the agent can rely on.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: the action and scope come first, then the return shape, then the safety statement. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated.

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 present, the description steps in to describe the return payload (ordered unsigned txs, EIP-5792 batch, sign_url) and the non-broadcast guarantee. Combined with the fully documented two-parameter schema and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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, token_id) are already documented, including that token_id comes from get_wallet_positions. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline for fully-covered 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 verb (withdraw) and a precisely scoped resource (a position in Panda's old vault), which distinguishes it from sibling withdraw tools like build_vault_withdraw and build_curated_vault_withdraw. The '(no fee)' qualifier further pins down which vault variant this is.

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 'old vault' scoping implies this is the tool for legacy positions, and siblings build_old_vault_migrate and get_old_vault_positions make the family recognizable. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over migrating (build_old_vault_migrate) or over the standard vault withdraw, so routing remains inferred rather than stated.

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