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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this with 'Signs nothing,' which usefully confirms no transaction is committed. It does say the preview yields amounts and cost, but adds nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, so it clears the lower bar without being rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb 'Preview' leads. The clause 'the most the purchase costs' is slightly awkward and vague, but overall the entry is tight and earns its space.

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?

With no output schema and a non-trivial six-parameter operation, the description is on the thin side: it names the previewed outputs loosely ('amounts, cost, the most the purchase costs') but omits the required term source and the relationship to the prepare step. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description references 'pledge' (own) and 'multiple', but adds no syntax, ranges, or units beyond what the schema provides, and never addresses term, wallet, lendAsset, or token. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Preview a leveraged loop' with a pledge and multiple — and the phrase 'Signs nothing' implicitly separates it from the prepare/execute siblings. It stops short of naming gage_prepare_leverage as the alternative, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives appear. 'Signs nothing' hints this is a pre-flight preview, but the agent must infer that gage_prepare_leverage is the follow-up step and there is no guidance on prerequisites, prerequisites order, or when a quote is even valid.

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