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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly states 'Read-only; no wallet, signing, broadcast, or custody,' which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also adds context about direct-RPC verification and caller-selected stress scenarios, but does not fully detail edge-case behavior or response structure, preventing a top score.

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 concise: a single dense sentence explaining purpose and outputs, followed by sibling comparisons and a safety note. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes information.

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 an inspection tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it inspects, what it returns, how to choose alternatives, and safety. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (address, shocks), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by referring to 'caller-selected collateral-price stress scenarios,' which clarifies the intent behind the `shocks` parameter beyond its raw schema description, earning a 4.

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 action ('Inspect one Base borrower across Morpho markets') and enumerates concrete outputs ('position balances, LTV, health factor, liquidation headroom, direct-RPC verification, and caller-selected collateral-price stress scenarios'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives when-to-use guidance: 'Use morpho_protection when you need exact repay or add-collateral amounts and unsigned transaction templates, morpho_market_underwrite for market-wide risk, or morpho_preliquidation_replay for one completed historical event.' It also notes the read-only nature, informing safe usage.

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