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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, aggregates evidence from three independent sources, will present explicit disagreements, and will not produce an opaque score or execute a transaction. This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it could mention failure modes or cost implications of the multi-source evidence gathering, hence not a 5.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the verb and resource, enumerates the evidence categories, then pivots to alternatives and behavioral constraints. Every sentence provides distinct value, though the long list of evidence types makes it somewhat heavy. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is complex (multi-source evidence for underwriting) and has no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent receives. It explains the evidence domains, the multi-source approach, and the output style (explicit disagreements, no risk score). It could be more explicit about the report's structure or format, but the description is complete enough for a knowledgeable agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers the single `marketId` parameter completely (100% coverage) with a pattern and description. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the market is on Base and that a single market is underwritten, but these are largely already implied or stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Underwrite one Base Morpho market' and enumerates the exact evidence dimensions (configuration integrity, liquidity, utilization, concentration, borrower health bands, recent history, bad debt, PreLiquidation availability). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the alternatives for one-borrower positions, protection plans, and historical replays.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (underwriting a whole market) and when not to: it directs the agent to `morpho_position` or `morpho_protection` for one borrower's current position/protection, and `morpho_preliquidation_replay` for a single historical event. It also sets expectations ('no opaque risk score or transaction action'), which guides invocation.

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