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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral nuance beyond that: the returned amount is an estimate and the actual rate is fixed by a live quote at borrow time, which prevents the agent from treating the value as binding.

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 action and its outputs before the estimate caveat. The example question earns its place as usage guidance, though the opening could be marginally tighter.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields and flagging the estimate-vs-live-quote limitation. What is missing is minor: no note on whether slug and tokenId are alternatives, and no indication of failure behavior when a property has no lending pool.

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 two params (slug, tokenId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how slug and tokenId relate (e.g. whether both are needed or which serves as fallback), 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('borrow quote') scoped to 'a specific tokenized property', and it enumerates what comes back (pool liquidity, max loan amount, durations, existing loan status). The property-scoped framing implicitly separates it from the market-wide sibling get_lending_market.

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 a concrete triggering question ('How much can I borrow against this property?'), which tells the agent the context in which to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use get_lending_market instead), so it falls just under the top tier.

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