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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose what the tool evaluates: collateral and loan oracle integrity, and the caller-declared LTV against live protocol parameters. It also very clearly states the limits of its behavior, saying it 'never signs, broadcasts, or authorizes a transaction.' What it doesn't say is whether the check is free or rate-limited, or how fresh or cached the protocol parameters are.

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?

Two tight sentences open with the scope and the output, then state the safety boundary. Every clause carries information, and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more weight. It covers the return values (ALLOW/CAUTION/BLOCK) and the safety profile well, but it leaves 7 undocumented parameters without units or per-protocol requirements, which is a meaningful gap for a gate whose correctness depends on getting those inputs right.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning itself. It adds only fragmentary hints: 'exact Morpho Blue market' implies that marketId is needed for Morpho, even though it isn't in the required list, and 'post-action LTV' implies that collateralValueUsd and debtValueUsd are post-action figures. It doesn't explain units, decimal scaling, or why action only allows supply or borrow, so most parameter meaning is left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 verb and resource: a read-only pre-signing gate for Base lending actions, scoped to four named protocols (Aave V3, Morpho Blue, Compound V3 USDC Comet, Moonwell), and it names the ALLOW/CAUTION/BLOCK output. It distinguishes itself from chain siblings such as monad_lending_guard by chain and protocol list, but it never names base_lending_guard_exact_call as the alternative for binding a decision to a transaction, so the reader has to infer which sibling to use.

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 usage context is implied well: call this before signing a supply/borrow on these Base markets. The closing sentence, 'bind a successful decision to an exact user-authorized transaction separately,' hints at the exact_call sibling, but never names it or states the condition that selects it. It also doesn't explain when to prefer check_position_safety or pre_trade_safety_check.

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