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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool checks safety against stress tests, but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, what assumptions the stress test makes, or what the output looks like. These are significant gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 two tight sentences with no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose before noting the supported position types. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions multi-asset and single-asset support but does not explain the relationship between those parameter sets, required protocol context, or what the safety check returns, leaving the agent with material gaps.

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 each parameter's meaning, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds useful context that both multi-asset and single-asset position modes are supported, which helps interpret the two sets of fields, but it does not explain mutual exclusivity or when to use which mode.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: checking the safety of a DeFi lending position against oracle deviation stress tests. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like check_liquidation_risk and pre_trade_safety_check by naming the oracle-stress-test scope, but it does not explicitly say how it differs from those tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_liquidation_risk or pre_trade_safety_check. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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