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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the calldata is time-sensitive (30 seconds), that reverts should be retried at least once, and that tenderly_sim_url/tenderly_sim_status should gate broadcasting. These behaviors are not visible in annotations or schema and materially affect invocation.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: core action, sibling alternatives, usage scope, time-sensitivity, retry policy, and simulation check. The most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 multi-step flash action with time-sensitive calldata and pre-broadcast validation, the description covers decision-making, retry behavior, and safety checks. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated; nothing essential is 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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds narrative context but does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific multi-step behavior: sell account collateral to the debt token and repay in one atomic transaction. It also distinguishes itself from write_account_repay and write_account_close, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use write_account_repay when repaying from wallet tokens, prefer write_account_close when closing a position, and use this tool only for standalone repayment while keeping the position active. This is a clear when/when-not statement.

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