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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful boundaries (analysis-only, no health factor computation, no tx preparation) and names the upstream dependency, but omits details such as permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on an invalid market id.

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?

Front-loads purpose and scope, then constraints, then prerequisites and examples. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the appended example list is slightly overloaded against the schema examples already present.

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-param read/analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, exclusions, workflow position, and the upstream call needed to obtain a market id. An agent has everything needed 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%, so marketId, collateral, and debt are already well documented in the schema, including spoke/hub examples. The description reinforces this with additional market-id examples and the Aave V4 protocol/version hint, but adds only marginal semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (underwrite) and resource (a collateral/debt loop on ONE lending market) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: score, tier, utilization, borrow APR, deposit status, and recent incidents for both reserves. This differentiates it from generic siblings like get_market or get_market_overview.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Call this before a protocol MCP preview_action / prepare_action'), an explicit prerequisite path ('If you do not have a market id, call list_markets first'), and explicit exclusions ('Does not compute health factor and does not prepare txs'). The agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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