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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that this is a top-10 preview and that the full universe requires a paid call, plus the atomic submission workflow. 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: tool definition, output specification, next-step workflow, and paid alternative. No filler, no repetition, and the core function is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to proceed after using it, and when to use the paid alternative. No critical gaps.

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% for the single optional `limit` parameter, with schema text explaining 'Max results (default 10, preview max 10)'. The description mentions 'top 10' consistently but adds no further parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: 'near-liquidation borrowers ranked by health factor proximity across Aave V3, Spark, and Morpho on L1 and Base.' It also enumerates the returned fields (borrower addresses, health factor, debt USD, collateral USD), making it unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools.

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?

It states a clear usage workflow: after obtaining a target, sign a liquidation transaction and call submit_bundle. It also directs users to the paid /intelligence/liquidation-waves endpoint for net profit estimates and the full borrower universe, providing an explicit alternative. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools like monitor_crossing_candidates or predict_liquidation_probability, but the context is strong.

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