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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, and the description still adds real value: the result is an estimate only, the rate comes from a live quote at borrow time, and it explains why a pool may show no capacity. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, but the safety profile is already carried by annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the middle is one long run-on sentence that dumps enumerated internal values (limitedBy, toRaise levers, oracle block). It is dense and hard to scan even though most content is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly (limits, limitedBy values, toRaise levers, oracle derivation). The main gap is that it never clarifies identifier requirements given 0 required parameters, so an agent must guess whether slug or tokenId is needed.

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% and each parameter already has a rich schema description, so the baseline is 3. The description restates amountUsd ("test a loan amount") and never addresses whether slug or tokenId is required or how they relate, adding little 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Estimate how much can be borrowed against a property on Fabrica") and frames the exact user question it answers. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_land_loan or get_fabrica_lending_market, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 trigger ("Answers questions such as 'How much can I borrow against this property?'") and a usage instruction for amountUsd ("pass amountUsd to test a loan amount"). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tool for related lending questions.

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