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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly warns that this is a 'View-only scan... not a liquidation simulation or guarantee', discloses that Compound v3 only exposes a boolean flag, and notes that duplicate addresses are silently removed. It also reveals per-protocol failure isolation and hardcoded market addresses, which are material behavioral details an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 organized into clear labeled sections (summary, use when, limitations, alternatives) with no filler sentences. The core capability is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds decision-relevant information, though there is minor repetition between the 'Use when' and 'Alternatives' sections.

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 output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context: exact protocols/chains, batch size, aggregate output, sibling routing, and important limitations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. It does restate the 'Ethereum or Base' chain choices and the 50-wallet/duplicate-removal constraints already present in the schema, but adds no new parameter-level detail such as address format or default-chain behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Assess'), a precise resource ('DeFi liquidation risk'), and scoping constraints ('up to 50 wallets', 'Aave v3 and Compound v3 on Ethereum or Base'). The description also enumerates concrete outputs (health factor, tiered risk classification, overall_tier), making it immediately distinguishable from portfolio or position tools.

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?

The 'Use when' section gives an explicit condition ('multi-wallet batch risk assessment (2+ wallets)') and names the correct alternative for single-wallet analysis (get_defi_positions). It also provides a clear decision rule for assess_counterparty_risk, and repeats the route in the 'Alternatives' section.

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