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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact call sequence (approve only when allowance is short, then supplyCollateral with 0x), that no oracle read occurs, the error code and its precise trigger, and that the response includes position before/after with HF and LTV. It also clarifies the trust boundary — the server never sends the transaction.

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 the purpose, then layers behavior, preconditions and the return shape in dense but purposeful clauses; nothing is filler. It is somewhat run-on with stacked parentheticals, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return content (calldata plus before/after HF and LTV), error behavior and the sending model. The main remaining gap is the `market` parameter's meaning and default behavior when omitted.

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 and only partly does. `shares` is richly specified (decimal or 'all' of the wallet, fund shares, redemption-queue shares excluded) and `account` is implied as the owner-key holder, but the optional `market` parameter is never mentioned in the description at all.

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+resource: produces unsigned calldata that posts `shares` fund shares as collateral via approve + supplyCollateral(marketParams, shares, account, 0x). That action is clearly distinct from sibling quote tools like borrow_withdraw_collateral_quote, borrow_repay_quote and borrow_take_quote, and it also makes clear this is a quote (calldata) rather than an execution.

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 the caller the operative context: the server never sends, so the caller must submit with the account's owner key, and it names the failure condition (insufficient_balance when the wallet holds fewer shares, with redemption-queue shares excluded). It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as borrow_withdraw_collateral_quote, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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