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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that no keyfo tool signs, that the returned calls must be signed and sent in order, that the sign_url page expires after 15 minutes and re-quotes itself, and it discloses smart contract, curator, and market risk. That is exactly the operational and safety context the readOnly/openWorld annotations cannot convey, and the "builds unsigned transactions, never signs" framing is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 and the vault default are front-loaded, and the sign_url handling instructions earn their space because they govern user-facing behavior. It is somewhat long and the withdraw case is tacked on with "or to withdraw it," which reads as an afterthought for a tool named build_morpho_deposit.

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?

For a transaction-building tool with no output schema, the description covers what is missing elsewhere: the shape of the return (ordered calls plus sign_url), the chain, the expiry/re-quote lifecycle, and a risk disclosure. An agent has enough to call it and to tell the user what to do next.

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 the meaning of pct, usd, side, vault, and wallet is already documented in the schema; the description only reiterates the largest-USDG-vault default for vault. It adds no guidance on the pct-versus-usd mutual exclusivity or the above-0/up-to-100 constraint beyond what the schema says, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Build unsigned transactions to deposit USDG into a Morpho vault on Robinhood Chain, or to withdraw it," and names the chain (4663). Purpose is unambiguous, but no sibling is named to compare against — an agent looking at build_trade, morpho_loop, and this tool will not find explicit routing from the description 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?

Clear guidance for the vault parameter ("Without a vault, the largest USDG vault is used") and for what to do with the result: show the sign_url to the user and never ask them to paste transaction data. What is not covered is when to prefer this over morpho_loop or how to pick between the usd and pct paths — that routing is left to the schema.

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