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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it provides actual curve points used by the protocol, and explains how to interpret the curve (kink location, steepness, hypothetical rates). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically: what it returns, why it's useful, when to use it, and how to get the parameter. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, balancing clarity with brevity.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what, why, when, and how. It explains the output nature (points on the curve), the practical use case, and the parameter source. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (version enum and hubAssetId source). The description repeats that hubAssetId comes from get_hub_assets but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool returns the rate curve for a hub asset, explaining borrow and supply APY across utilisation levels. It distinguishes itself from get_reserve_details by emphasizing it explains the curve rather than reporting a single point, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: before a large supply or borrow that would shift utilisation. Names the alternative get_reserve_details and explains why it's insufficient for large positions. Also directs the user to get_hub_assets for the correct parameter source, leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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