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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-readonly/non-idempotent behavior. The description goes further by disclosing that it returns an ORDERED STEP PLAN, requires a payment_header past the free tier, is geo-gated, and that idempotency_key replays the original result instead of re-unwinding. 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?

The description is compact and well-structured, front-loading the core operation and using labeled backtick references for parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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 destructive financial tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, it covers the essential invocation context: source position, payment requirement, geo-gating, idempotent replay behavior, and return form. The output schema covers return details, and most unexplained parameters are optional or self-explanatory from their names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains position_id, jurisdiction, idempotency_key, and payment_header behavior. However, several optional parameters such as market, marginfi_account, slippage_bps, pay_in_crank, caller_id, and ip remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a notable gap.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Unwind') naming the resource ('tracked leveraged position') and gives the exact process sequence: sell -> repay stable -> withdraw. The reference to 'position_id from leverage_long' clearly ties it to its counterpart and distinguishes it from the obvious sibling that opens the position.

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 explicitly connects this tool to leverage_long, indicating it is the closing counterpart, and points to short_open for jurisdiction behavior. This gives an agent enough context to select it for unwinding a leveraged position, though it does not enumerate when not to use it versus other close-related siblings like short_close.

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