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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: it is a 'current snapshot,' results are 'sorted ascending,' and filtering is by health factor below max_hf. However, it omits compound from the protocol list even though the schema includes it, and it does not address output shape or rate limits, which is a noticeable gap.

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, no filler, key information front-loaded. Every clause contributes: scope, filter criterion, sort order, and a practical parameter tip.

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 read-only list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and sorting behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it fails to mention the 'compound' protocol option from the schema, but overall the context is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining max_hf as the health-factor ceiling and min_debt_usd as a way to 'ignore dust positions,' which is more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific action ('Current snapshot ... whose health factor sits below `max_hf`') and identifies the resource (borrowers across Aave, Morpho, and Spark). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like seneschal_list_borrowers by focusing on at-risk status and health-factor filtering.

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 implies when to use the tool (when an at-risk borrower snapshot is needed) and gives parameter advice about min_debt_usd, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as seneschal_list_borrowers or seneschal_get_borrower.

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