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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses that the tool is free, cross-chain, and what metrics will be in the summary. The read-only nature is strongly implied by the word 'summary,' though it is not stated outright.

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 description front-loads the core purpose ('FREE cross-chain distress summary') and then enumerates the concrete output fields in a compact colon list. The second sentence, 'A free taste of the paid index,' is somewhat redundant with the initial 'FREE' but adds useful positioning context.

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 parameterless summary tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the scope (cross-chain), the content (positions, liquidatable count, tightest health factor, per-feed status), and the freemium constraint. It could go further on what 'per-feed status' means or how the data is sourced, but nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds value by describing what the tool will compute and return.

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 resource (cross-chain distress summary) and the exact data it returns: positions tracked, liquidatable count, tightest health factor, and per-feed status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like farm_health or farm_liquidations, which likely target one of those aspects in depth.

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 'FREE' and 'free taste of the paid index' wording implies this is the lightweight entry point for a broad distress overview, and the list of summary contents implies when it is appropriate. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it versus farm_distress, farm_health, or farm_liquidations.

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