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

Read-only and open-world are already declared in annotations, so the description's added value is the same-block atomicity guarantee (owed and held read at one block, avoiding skew), the adapter auto-guessing behavior, and the applicability limit to backed_solvency contracts. The main undisclosed trait is the response shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison, then the usage trigger, then the supported scope. Slightly padded by the explanatory aside "so the answer is exact," but no sentence is wasted.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, atomicity, and supported protocols. The gap is that with no output schema, the agent is not told what the returned owed-vs-held comparison looks like, which is the one thing left to inference.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by adding applicability constraints on `target` (must implement backed_solvency) and clarifying that `adapter` is auto-selected for the two known protocols with `backed` as fallback. It does not add anything about the tokens array or the 10-token cap.

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 and resource pair: reads a protocol's owed accounting view versus its held ft_balance_of for each token, at a single block. That is far more precise than the name alone and tells an agent exactly what question it answers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling intents_backing_summary, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Use before depositing into a protocol" gives a clear triggering condition, and the supported-targets sentence scopes where it applies (intents.near, contract.main.burrow.near, any backed_solvency implementer). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling summary/status tools as alternatives, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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