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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain behavior: what is fetched (active borrowing position) and the critical interpretability rule that health factor < 1.0 means liquidatable. It does not mention failure modes for wallets with no position or unsupported addresses.

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-loaded with the core action and return values, followed by the health-factor interpretation rule and example utterances. The three quoted example questions are longer than strictly necessary but do earn their place by improving intent matching; otherwise the text is tight.

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?

The tool is a single-parameter read with a full output schema, so return-field documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, interpretation of the key metric, and usage triggers. The only gap is the absence of guidance relative to the closely related calculate_health_factor and scan_wallet siblings.

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 schema already specifies the 48-character friendly format starting with EQ or UQ with an example, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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'), resource ('a TON wallet address'), the protocol context ('EVAA lending protocol'), and the return ('active borrowing position with health factor and liquidation risk'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as scan_solana_wallet, scan_wallet, and calculate_health_factor.

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 gives explicit trigger phrasing ('Use this when asked: ...') with three representative user questions, which is strong routing guidance for an agent. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or why one would prefer calculate_health_factor or scan_wallet over this tool, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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