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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares read-only scope ('no wallet, signing, broadcast, or custody'), discloses the payment/credential binding endpoint (GET https://..., not mcp://), and gives retry semantics. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination/caching behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by alternatives and then operational caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the payment-endpoint and retry clause makes it dense. Slightly tighter grouping of the operational notes would improve it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (balances, LTV, health factor, liquidation headroom, direct-RPC verification, stress scenarios). Combined with the read-only declaration and payment/retry notes, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly; only minor edges like pagination are omitted.

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 both parameters (address, shocks) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of 'caller-selected collateral-price stress scenarios' loosely maps to the shocks parameter but adds no syntax, range, or format detail beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one Base borrower across Morpho markets') and enumerates the outputs returned (balances, LTV, health factor, liquidation headroom, stress scenarios). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming what those tools do instead, so an agent can separate it without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: 'Use morpho_protection when you need exact repay or add-collateral amounts...', 'morpho_market_underwrite for market-wide risk', 'morpho_preliquidation_replay for one completed historical event.' When-to-use and when-to-use-alternatives are both stated with conditions.

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