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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it uses live relay telemetry, falls back to market conditions when no borrower is specified, and returns a human-readable reason. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose: the action, the return values, and the workflow pairing. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and well structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is complete. It explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The return shape is described enough in prose to compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

The schema already documents the single optional 'borrower' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds important semantic nuance: omitting the borrower switches to market-conditions mode. This extra meaning goes beyond the schema description, justifying a 4.

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 purpose: getting an actionable bundle submission recommendation. It specifies the return values (best builder, inclusion probability, reason) and mentions the optional borrower scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'get_builder_recommendation', so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage context: pair with 'monitor_crossing_candidates' after identifying a hot candidate, and use either a specific borrower or current market conditions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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