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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete meaning ('nothing is sent, reserved or signed'). It goes beyond annotations by disclosing credit semantics: exact for USDC, estimate plus guaranteed minimum for ETH/SOL, the one-time 1 USDC activation fee, and rejection when below minimum. Missing only rate-limit/staleness caveats on the quoted estimate.

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?

Trigger and return shape are front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the definition is one long em-dash and parenthesis chain that is harder to parse than it needs to be. Still no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what comes back (address plus credited amount, with exactness guarantees) and what happens in the failure case (below-minimum explanation). Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, including enum constraints and the native-USDC/network compatibility rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the asset-dependent consequence (exact vs estimated credit) rather than new parameter syntax or format detail.

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 (preview a deposit) and names precisely what it returns: the exact address to send to and the USDC amount that will be credited. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_my_deposit_addresses (address only) and get_my_deposits (post-send history).

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to deposit a specific amount') and routes the next step explicitly ('After the user sends, call get_my_deposits to follow it'), which tells the agent this tool is a pre-send step, not a status query.

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