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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain context — the exact protocol/chain coverage and the rule that health factor < 1.0 means liquidatable — which the annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and return shape before the longer protocol enumeration, and the health-factor rule and trigger phrases are well placed. The protocol/chain list is dense but earns its space by defining coverage boundaries; it is slightly verbose for a single-parameter 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return format or permissions. Coverage limits, the liquidation threshold, and example intents are all present — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 0x address format and length. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ("Scans an EVM wallet address") and enumerates exactly what it returns: every active borrowing position with health factors and liquidation risk. The protocol/chain scope (Aave V3/V4, Spark, Morpho, Euler, Moonwell) clearly separates it from scan_solana_wallet and scan_ton_wallet.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ("Is this wallet at risk of liquidation?", "Which protocols is this wallet borrowing from?") that map user intent to this tool. It does not name the alternative tools directly — an agent must infer that non-EVM wallets belong to scan_solana_wallet/scan_ton_wallet — but the EVM scoping makes that routing nearly unambiguous.

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