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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile of a state-changing prepare call is partly covered. The description adds meaningfully beyond that: it returns the next unsigned transaction plus a review link and 'never signs', which is exactly the context an agent needs before treating the result as actionable.

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 action and ending on the non-signing guarantee. The first sentence is dense and run-on, packing pledge, asset, and repayment terms into one clause set, but nothing is wasted and the critical constraint is not buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return shape (unsigned transaction plus review link) and the non-signing guarantee, which is the key completeness item for a prepare tool. Combined with annotations covering the write/non-idempotent profile and near-complete parameter documentation, the definition is close to self-sufficient, with the undocumented token/wallet params the only real gap.

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 71%, and the schema itself documents cap, term, principal, collateral, and lendAsset. The description adds the lendAsset default (USDG when omitted) and the pledge/repay semantics in prose, but leaves 'token' and 'wallet' entirely unexplained and adds no unit or boundary detail beyond what the schema carries, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 ('Prepare a loan') and immediately spells out the full economic shape: pledge a token, receive USDG or the lendAsset, repay a fixed amount within the term. It also separates itself from the sibling gage_borrow_quote by specifying that this uses the quote's prepare object without its action, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 line 'Use the prepare object of gage_borrow_quote, without its action' tells the agent where the inputs come from and implicitly that a quote precedes this call, which is genuine routing guidance. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., before obtaining a quote, or when the user only wants pricing), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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