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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares 'Read-only; nothing is sent' and lists the returned market and position fields, including oracle status values (live / held / unavailable). It also warns that the market id is discovered at each call and that the mainnet market is being migrated to a new oracle. It does not cover authentication, error behavior, or freshness guarantees.

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 front-loaded with scope and purpose, then provides return fields and rules without filler. However, it is delivered as one very long semicolon-heavy sentence followed by two short sentences, which makes scanning harder than a bulleted or paragraph-structured form. Every clause carries content, so it earns most of its length.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and safety behavior; it does so comprehensively by listing market metrics and 'my' position values, plus otherPositions and market-selection semantics. It also states read-only behavior and the LTV/LLTV rule. The missing piece is a clear definition of the required 'account' parameter and any error/empty-state behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the optional 'market' parameter meaningfully: positions on another market appear under otherPositions, and 'market' selects one; it also notes the market id is discovered at each call. The required 'account' parameter is never explicitly described, though 'my' fields imply it is the position owner's address.

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 states a specific resource and scope: Morpho Blue market status on the BORROW side, with collateral, debt, and market metrics. 'Share Lending, BORROW side' distinguishes it from the lending-side status tool, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many borrow_*_quote action tools. The verb is implicit ('status' in the name) rather than clearly stated as a read operation in the first phrase.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only status check before borrow actions, reinforced by 'Read-only; nothing is sent.' The description does not say when to use this instead of borrow_take_quote, borrow_repay_quote, or lend_status, nor does it name alternatives. The market-selection note ('Positions left on another market show under otherPositions; market selects one') is useful but concerns parameters more than tool selection.

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