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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the result is net of fees and slippage at the user's size, which is useful behavioral context, but the imperative 'Lock funding' is ambiguous because the tool is read-only and does not actually lock anything.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted padding. Its main weakness is that the leading action phrase 'Lock funding' is less precise than the comparison actually performed.

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 a simple two-parameter read-only comparison tool, the description covers the core calculation and fee/slippage context. It omits the 'limit' parameter and does not clarify the return format, so it is only minimally complete.

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 only 50%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. It vaguely gestures at 'notional' with 'at your size', but that does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 names the specific comparison: Boros implied APR versus delivery-futures basis APR, including net fees and slippage. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool's analytical purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as basis_trades or boros_lock_calculator.

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 phrase 'against a delivery future of the same maturity' implies the usage scenario, so there is some context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives.

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