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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Signs nothing' reinforces the no-side-effect profile while describing what the preview returns (amounts, cost, maximum purchase cost) — valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating refuse conditions or the wallet's role.

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 that names the action, the inputs, the outputs, and the safety property with zero wasted words.

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 read-only quote with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and that nothing is signed. Minor omissions are the valid-term source and behavior when a lend asset is refused, both of which the schema partially covers.

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% and already documents own, term, multiple, and lendAsset well, including the refuse/open semantics of lendAsset. The description adds only the 'pledge'/'multiple' framing and nothing about the undocumented token and wallet parameters, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 and resource ('Preview a leveraged loop') plus the key inputs (pledge, multiple) and the returned content (amounts, cost, max purchase cost). The closing 'Signs nothing' implicitly separates it from the prepare_* siblings, though it never names gage_prepare_leverage directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the dry-run before gage_prepare_leverage, but there is no explicit 'use this before preparing' guidance, no when-not condition, and no reference to gage_capabilities for valid terms.

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