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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond structured fields: health factor < 1.0 denotes a liquidatable position, which is what makes the returned data actionable.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the key interpretation rule, then the trigger examples in one compact block. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 single-param read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the critical interpretation threshold. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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% and the single 'wallet' parameter is fully documented in the schema with base58 pattern and example. The description adds nothing about parameter format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (scans) plus resource (Solana wallet address) and narrows scope to Kamino lending positions with a precise output summary (borrowing positions, health factors, liquidation risk). An agent can distinguish it from scan_ton_wallet and the generic scan_wallet without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrasing ('Check Kamino health for this Solana wallet', 'Is this Solana address at risk of liquidation?') that maps intent to tool. It stops short of naming the alternatives (scan_wallet, scan_ton_wallet) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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