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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions building a saga but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or what the built transaction does. Lacks behavioral context such as whether the operation is destructive or requires prior state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information, every sentence adds value. Efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a 5-tx saga and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values or how the saga is constructed. While the inputs are listed, the agent may need more context on expected output or next steps.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by identifying the two 'ephemeral ctx-state pubkeys' (equalityContextAccount and rangeContextAccount), which is not explicit in the schema. This slightly surpasses the 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 it builds a '5-tx Withdraw saga' with specific inputs: proofs, decryptable, and pubkeys. This is a specific verb+resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling build tools (e.g., deposit, transfer).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose implies it is for withdrawing from a confidential token, but no alternatives like deposit or transfer are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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