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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful context (what event types are published, id formats, and that Aave V4 hub ids union spoke feeds), but it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, rate limits, or how many events are typically returned beyond the schema's limit default.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then routing constraints. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the id examples are long but earn their place by clarifying accepted formats.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must set expectations, and it does explain what kinds of events appear. It stops short of describing the response shape (fields per event) or pagination, which would be the remaining gap for an agent consuming results.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete id format examples (morpho-v1-1-pt-reusd-10dec2026-usdc-91-5) and explaining the hub-union semantics for Aave V4 ids, which the schema only hints at.

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 and resource ('Published risk events for ONE lending market') and enumerates the event kinds (incidents, bad debt, liquidation cascades) with a concrete example. It explicitly scopes itself as ONE market vs platform-level tools, so an agent can distinguish it from get_market_overview and get_market without opening schemas.

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?

It names both alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Not platform stats (get_market_overview) and not the market data itself (get_market).' That is explicit when-not guidance plus concrete alternative routing, leaving little to inference.

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