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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), but the description goes beyond them with rare, useful traits: rate limits of 20 calls/minute and no more than one call per 3s, plus the return payload shape. It does not state caching or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Everything is packed into a single front-loaded paragraph: deprecation, purpose, payload, alternative, and rate limits, with no filler sentences. It is dense rather than ideally chunked, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the return contents, the sibling alternative, and the rate constraints. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 token parameter is already documented with the same symbol examples the description repeats. The description adds no new syntax, validation, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get MetaLend's recommended default rebalancer configuration for a given token symbol') and even enumerates the payload (rebalancingManagerAddress, protocolIds, poolAddresses, domainIds). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_config, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Intended for wallets with no existing config yet') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('for an existing wallet's current config use get_config instead'). The [DEPRECATED] marker adds a further routing signal.

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