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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it returns an unsigned transaction plus a review link and never signs, and it explains the wallet's net settlement (pays old cost plus new fee, or keeps the overage). It does not cover failure modes or required approvals.

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 dense sentence with the core mechanic front-loaded and the return/signing behavior appended. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical about cost and fee makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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 correctly states what is returned (unsigned transaction and review link) and that signing never occurs. For a prepare-style mutation tool this is nearly complete; only prerequisites and the term/engine defaults are left to the schema.

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 50%: term and engine are documented in the schema, while loanId and wallet are not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of term, engine, or defaults), so it neither compensates for the gap nor repeats the schema — baseline 3.

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 specific verb and resource ('Prepare rolling a running loan over') and immediately defines the mechanics: a same-size loan on the same pledge repays the old one, with the wallet settling the difference. This clearly separates it from siblings like gage_prepare_borrow or gage_prepare_cash_out.

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 by the mechanics described (use this to roll an existing loan rather than open a new one), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gage_prepare_borrow or gage_borrow_quote for quoting first.

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