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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (health_factor, cross_probability, etc.) and hinting at time sensitivity ('how long until crossing'). It goes beyond simple read-only disclosure by explaining what the prediction includes.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: purpose, output details, usage guidance, and a link to a richer alternative. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured logically, with no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields and their units, making the return contract understandable. It also ties the tool into the broader workflow (before submit_bundle), and distinguishes itself from the more comprehensive endpoint, providing complete context for the agent's decision-making.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by clarifying that borrower is optional and that omitting it 'returns top 5 candidates by cross probability,' and that protocol is a filter when borrower is not specified. This adds contextual meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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's function: 'Get a structured liquidation probability prediction for a specific borrower or the top candidates.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('prediction'), and distinctively positions itself as 'the core moat tool' that exposes the prediction layer, differentiating it from sibling tools like submit_bundle or get_liquidation_waves.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this before submit_bundle to confirm the opportunity is still live and to size your bribe correctly.' It also mentions an alternative (full model at /intelligence/liquidation-waves with payment), giving clear when-to-use and when-to-consider-other-options context.

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