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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reveals what data is returned per item and notes the v4-only constraint, which is not fully captured by the annotation or schema alone.

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 tight and front-loaded: it opens with the v4-only constraint, then states the exact scope and output fields, and ends with a practical prerequisite. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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 lookup with fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the item-level return content and where to obtain the required spokeId. It does not describe pagination or empty-result behavior, but no output schema exists and the information provided is sufficient for typical use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description does add the practical hint that spokeId comes from get_user_positions, but that same instruction is already present in the parameter schema. No significant additional parameter meaning is provided beyond the structured definitions.

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 individual supply/borrow items inside a v4 spoke, with specific attributes: principal, accrued interest, and withdrawable amount. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-spoke aggregate provided by get_user_positions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description identifies get_user_positions as the source for the required spokeId and implies this tool is for item-level detail that the aggregate cannot show. It also clearly scopes usage to v4 only. There is no explicit 'when not to use' list, but the contrast with the sibling tool gives strong contextual routing.

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