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

Description adds key behavioral info: output is a time series tuple, granularity defaults to raw, and hour/day are chart-friendly. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose limit/pagination behavior, ordering, or handling of missing data, leaving some burden unmet.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core output contract, no filler. The granularity guidance earns its place by adding actionable usage detail.

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, but the description explicitly defines the return tuple and granularity behavior, covering main usage. Schema covers time range and limit defaults; residual gaps like ordering or error behavior are minor for this read-only history 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 covers 5 of 6 parameters with descriptions/defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying the semantic purpose of granularity ('chart-friendly buckets') and confirming address/protocol scoping, justifying a 4.

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?

Description opens with 'Returns a time series of (timestamp, health_factor, collateral_usd, debt_usd) observations for `address` on `protocol`', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like `get_borrower` by emphasizing historical time-series data rather than current state.

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 description provides clear context for use: it returns historical observations and explicitly advises using `hour` or `day` granularity for chart-friendly buckets. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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