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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the rate limit of 20 calls/minute and a minimum 3s interval between calls. It also clarifies that the returned values are recommendations from MetaLend, which is useful beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences carry all necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it versus the alternative, and rate limits. There is no filler or repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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-only tool, the description is fully sufficient: it names the input, describes the output fields, states the usage context, gives the alternative, and discloses rate limits. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'token' is a token symbol with examples. The description repeats the token-symbol framing and adds the e.g. 'USDC' example, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('MetaLend's recommended default rebalancer configuration'), the target input ('a given token symbol'), and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from get_config, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says this tool is for wallets with no existing config yet and points to get_config as the alternative for an existing wallet's current config. This gives the agent a clear decision rule rather than leaving usage to inference.

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