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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive calculator. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the result accounts for taker and settlement fees, entry cost, and floating-rate comparison, which is more than the annotations provide.

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 dense sentence with little wasted text, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the long run-on structure makes the relationships between inputs and outputs harder to parse than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description does list the key outputs: locked net APR, advantage versus floating, and break-even floating rate. But it omits important semantics for the horizon (days) and notional size, and its unit language is imprecise for a tool with several non-percent parameters.

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 13% across eight parameters, so the description must carry most of the parameter meaning. It partially maps rate_pct, floating_pct, side, taker_pct, settle_pct, and entry_usd, but leaves days and notional unexplained and offers the potentially misleading blanket phrase 'Percent inputs' even though several parameters are USD amounts.

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 that this computes locked net income or cost APR on Pendle Boros after fees, plus advantage over floating and break-even floating rate. It is specific to Boros and distinguishes the calculation from generic APR tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 instead of siblings such as fixed_vs_floating, manual_calculator, or execution_cost. Usage is only implied by the calculation being described.

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