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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint: v4 'enable' sets state while v3 toggles, a toggle inverting the stated state is refused, disabling triggers simulation with different outcomes, and simulation failure is surfaced under 'warnings.' It also states 'nothing moves' and 'Non-custodial,' making the read-only nature concrete. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description carries a distinct fact: primary action, v3/v4 behavior, precondition, simulation logic, warning outcomes, and custody. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important framing ('Build an unsigned transaction') is front-loaded. A reader gets a full mental model without skimming irrelevant detail.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It references a 'warnings' field and implies an unsigned transaction payload, covering the most important output details. It could be more explicit about the overall response shape and the fact that the returned transaction must be submitted elsewhere, but the given context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about the flow, but each parameter's semantics is already thoroughly documented in the input schema (e.g., enable_version behavior, reserveId caveats). The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to change whether a supplied asset is used as collateral (v3 or v4).' It further clarifies scope by distinguishing v3 toggle semantics from v4 set semantics and by noting 'nothing moves,' which separates it from executing or liquidation tools. This is far more specific than the title alone.

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 gives clear situational guidance: a wallet must already hold supply in the reserve, v3 and v4 behave differently, and disabling is simulated with health-factor thresholds. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lands just below the 'explicit exclusions' bar.

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