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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: Uniswap v4 discovery goes through gage's index plus on-chain checks, and a note discloses when positions may be missing — an important completeness caveat for a read that informs a borrowing decision.

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 first clause is front-loaded with the resource and the venue list follows efficiently; the two closing sentences add caveat and routing value rather than filler. The multi-protocol enumeration is dense but each name is load-bearing for scope.

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, the description takes on the burden of describing the return shape — range, liquidity, amounts, USDG valuation basis ('at the pool's price now'), and current lane eligibility — and it does so, plus a data-completeness caveat for v4. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description ('The wallet that will sign') is already at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the load. The prose adds only the possessive framing 'a wallet's liquidity positions' and does not clarify that the address is also the position owner versus merely the signer, which is the one genuinely ambiguous point.

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 names a concrete verb+resource (a wallet's liquidity positions) and enumerates what is returned: range, liquidity, amounts, USDG worth, and lane eligibility, across five named venues. It hints at its role as the entry point ('Start here to borrow against one') but never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named siblings gage_lp_loans or gage_lp_quote.

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?

'Start here to borrow against one' implies the discovery step preceding a quote, and the eligibility field implies a pre-borrow check. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given, so the routing guidance must be inferred from sibling names.

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