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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes meaningfully beyond them: it names the return shape (a quote envelope), identifies the `expiresAt` field as unix milliseconds, and states the 180-second expiry window, which explains why the tool is non-idempotent. It adds useful context on unit encoding, though it does not say whether the quote must be consumed by a specific build/simulate step or what happens if it lapses.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the two facts an agent cannot get from the schema: envelope shape with expiry, and amount encoding. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 five-parameter quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the return envelope and expiry well enough to call it correctly. The notable gap is workflow placement — nothing ties the resulting quote to build_borrow or simulate, and it does not say whether the optional marketId needs to match an existing position's market.

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 coverage is 80%, and the description fills the one real gap by stating that amounts are base-unit integer strings — the `borrowAmount` parameter has no description in the schema, so this prevents a decimals-vs-base-unit mistake on the most error-prone input. The remaining parameters are already documented in the schema and need no repetition.

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?

"Quote borrowing more against a position" gives a specific verb (quote) and resource (borrowing against an existing position), which distinguishes it from the open/close/repay quote siblings by implying an incremental borrow on a live position. It stops short of naming the sibling it should not be confused with, such as quote_adjust, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says to call this before build_borrow, never contrasts it with quote_adjust or quote_open, and never notes prerequisites such as holding an existing position. An agent must infer the quote-first workflow entirely from the naming convention across siblings.

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