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 beyond annotations: it returns only the top 10 positions (preview), the limit parameter has a max of 10, and it lists the exact return fields, which is useful for the agent to understand the tool's scope and limitations.

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 concise: three sentences cover purpose, output, and workflow. No redundancy or filler—each sentence earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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, read-only, no nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It lists return fields, states the preview limitation, and provides workflow context (submit_bundle) and an alternative for extended needs. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, including its default and max values. The description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema offers, but since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool gets near-liquidation borrowers ranked by health factor proximity across Aave V3, Spark, and Morpho on L1 and Base. It specifies the exact output fields (borrower addresses, health factor, debt USD, collateral USD) and differentiates from siblings like get_mev_feed or predict_liquidation_probability by focusing on ranked borrower lists.

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 tells the agent to use this tool to get targets, then sign a liquidation transaction and call submit_bundle for atomic execution. It also directs to the paid endpoint /intelligence/liquidation-waves for net profit estimates and the full borrower universe, establishing when not to use this tool.

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