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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds genuinely useful behavior detail beyond the annotations: ordering ('open and active first'), included fields (amounts, collateral, rate, status), and that totals are normalized in ADA.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler; the loan scope is front-loaded and the return-shape clause follows. Every phrase carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return explanation, and it does: fields, ordering, and ADA totals. It stops short of mentioning whether closed/repaid loans are included or how large result sets are handled, which would fully close the gap for a single-wallet query.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including pattern and accepted forms (addr1…, stake1…, $handle), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Loans a wallet has lent or borrowed') and scopes it to the wallet-as-subject, which cleanly separates it from portfolio-level siblings like get_loans_overview or get_defi_positions. It also names the fields returned and the ADA denomination, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 implied by the wallet-scoped framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_loans_overview for protocol-wide loan data). An agent must infer that this is the wallet-specific loan lookup.

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