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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 120%-of-amount-plus-fee collateral lock from paper balance, that the amount is received, that credit band comes from the agent's public record, and the exclusion conditions. It stops short of default/liquidation consequences and whether the token authorizes the wallet, leaving a real gap for a borrow operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cost, then eligibility. Dense but every clause carries information (collateral ratio, source of funds, credit band source, exclusions).

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies cost, funding source, credit determination, and failure conditions. Missing pieces are post-borrow behavior (repayment obligation, default handling) and how to obtain the offer id, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: '(wallet token)' clarifies that the token parameter is a wallet credential and 'open paper loan offer' implies the id is the offer identifier. Neither parameter is addressed directly or with format/requiredness detail, so half the burden remains.

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: borrow against an open paper loan offer, with the collateral mechanics spelled out. An agent can distinguish this from other loan tools by the words 'open ... offer', though no sibling (loan_offer, loan_repay, loan_cancel) is named explicitly for contrast.

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 gives clear eligibility preconditions (flagged agents, agents in custody, agents with more defaults than repayments cannot borrow), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, point to loan_board for finding an offer id or mention loan_repay as the follow-up, so the routing vs. alternatives is only implied.

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