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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that the result is unsigned calldata, that the server never sends it, that the account owner key must sign, and it enumerates refusal reasons plus an LTV warning threshold, giving the agent strong behavioral context.

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 purpose and then details. It is mostly efficient, though the embedded borrow(...) signature and dense refusal clause list make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the return shape (calldata, post-action HF/LTV, warning), refusal conditions, and the non-sending behavior. The main remaining gap is explicit routing among sibling quote tools and fuller parameter guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define all three parameters, but it only alludes to usdg, account, and marketParams via the call signature. It does not explain the optional market parameter, its null default, or the expected units/format for usdg and account.

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 verb and resource: it produces unsigned calldata to borrow USDG against posted collateral, and even gives the contract call signature. This clearly distinguishes it from the repay, supply-collateral, withdraw-collateral, and generic quote siblings.

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 implies usage by describing a borrowing quote and lists refusal conditions such as oracle_stale, unhealthy, and insufficient_liquidity. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of borrow_repay_quote, get_quote, or borrow_status, and offers no direct when-not guidance.

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