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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it returns an unsigned transaction plus a review link, it never signs, and the loop is refused above maxCostBps. The failure condition and the non-custodial boundary are exactly what an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the transaction outcome front-loaded before the constraint and the return value. Nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (unsigned tx + review link) and when the call is refused. The remaining gap is sequencing relative to gage_capabilities and gage_leverage_quote, which the term description references but the tool description does not.

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 description mostly restates identifiers already documented in the schema (maxCostBps ceiling, USDG-only lend asset). It does convey that the pledge and loan interact ('loan buys more of the pledged token'), but adds no format or unit guidance for wallet, token, own, term, or multiple beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific verb plus resource ('Prepare a leveraged loop') and explains the mechanism in one clause: the loan buys more of the pledged token in one transaction. It also carves out scope ('USDG only'), which separates it from generic borrow paths, though it never names the sibling it replaces (e.g. gage_prepare_borrow or gage_leverage_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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns this is the prepare step that yields an unsigned transaction, and that non-USDG lend assets are refused. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against the many prepare_* siblings, and no stated prerequisite to quote first.

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