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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the previewRedeem cross-check with a pinned tolerance refusal, the registryCommitment recomputation requirement, the 300-second envelope validity window, and how the withdraw is valued (zero against the per-swap cap) and bounded (engine share cap). This is far more than the annotations convey.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the text is a single dense paragraph that mixes construction semantics, safety checks, submission routing, and cap rules into one run-on block, and repeats the otto_prepare_swap framing. Everything roughly earns its place, yet the lack of structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still supplies the prerequisites (registry commitment match, previewRedeem tolerance), the lifecycle constraint (300s validity), and the downstream submission path. For a prepare-only tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains executableMarketId (names the registry row supplying vault and asset) and registryCommitment (must equal the recomputed commitment) and alludes to the slippage tolerance, but shares, accountProfile, slippage.maxBps bounds, and client_ref are left entirely to the schema's structural constraints.

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+resource (prepare the swap pair that redeems Yield Copilot Morpho vault shares back to USDC), names the exact artifact produced (envelope + prepareInput), and pins the route type (LI.FI exit whose input token is the ERC-4626 share token). An agent can distinguish it from otto_prepare_swap and otto_prepare_yield_deposit from the text alone.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the returned pair must be submitted through otto_submit_under_delegation, and it states the operation is admitted only under fence v2 with a cap-ruleset-v2 permission. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool (e.g. versus a direct swap or deposit), so the alternative-selection is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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