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

The description clarifies that the tool only builds an unsigned transaction rather than executing a transfer, which is useful beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also discloses validation behavior for spot accounts and the free-margin requirement, adding meaningful operational context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering the main use case, key exclusion, account-type constraint, and prerequisite verification, with only modest length relative to the behavioral nuance it conveys.

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 build-only transaction tool with a full input schema and output schema present, the description covers the critical operational context: when not to use it, account eligibility, validation behavior, and the needed pre-check. Nothing essential for correct tool selection or invocation appears to be missing.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters including the pool address constants, amount units, and chain_id options. The description adds domain context around account eligibility but does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it builds an unsigned transaction to borrow from an Arcadia lending pool against account collateral. It also differentiates itself from write_account_add_liquidity, so an agent can distinguish it from a closely related sibling.

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?

Explicitly explains when the tool is NOT needed (leveraged LP via write_account_add_liquidity), which account types work (margin accounts) versus spot accounts that will be rejected, and even recommends a prerequisite check using read_account_info with a concrete condition: collateral_value must exceed used_margin.

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