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

Annotations already carry the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real interpretive value: the distinction between 'halted' (stops supply, borrow, withdraw, and repay alike) and 'not active' (never configured on that spoke), which prevents an agent from conflating two very different states in the response.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: version scope and purpose, usage trigger, flag semantics, and parameter provenance. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is on the longer side, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned data fields. It covers version scope, when to use it, where parameters come from, and how to interpret the halted/inactive flags. Minor gaps such as the exact format of the cap values keep it from a 5.

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 hubId, spokeId, and version are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the timing nuance that get_reserve_details is the ID route that works before a wallet holds anything, but this largely restates the schema's parameter source notes. The baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 states a precise scope — per-asset limits for exactly one (hub, spoke) pair — and enumerates the returned fields (supply/borrow caps, active state, halted state, risk premium threshold). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling get_* tools through the single-pair granularity and v4-only constraint, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Read it before sizing a large position, because a cap is what turns a valid-looking supply into a reverting one.' It also explains the preferred ID route (get_reserve_details) that works before a wallet holds anything on the spoke, implicitly contrasting with get_user_positions. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative for when a different granularity is needed, but the context is clear.

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