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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description still contributes real behavioral content: the approval is sized to the lens figure plus 100 bps, the take is the amount that brings LTV to to_ltv plus 50 bps less idle money capped by max_usdg, and the rescuer can lose their USDG if the position is liquidated anyway. That risk disclosure and the refusal-mode list are genuinely beyond the annotations. It loses a point because the crucial 'Simulated from the wallet' qualifier is buried at the very end, leaving the read-only-versus-builds-transactions relationship under-emphasized.

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?

The purpose and the refusal behavior are front-loaded, and most sentences carry information an agent needs (approval sizing, failure modes, return contents, liquidation risk). But the prose is dense and clause-chained; phrases like 'for interest, the price and the vault before it lands' cost the reader more than they return, and key facts such as the simulation qualifier and the loss warning are stranded at the end.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is prepared, what is approved, what the account takes on landing, when it is refused, and what the answer reports (principal, fee share, Borro's cut, equity against the claim, foreclosure timing). The only meaningful gap is not stating explicitly how the prepared transactions get signed and submitted.

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 the schema already explains wallet, account, max_usdg (including the lens-approve default), and offer_id. The description only adds that the take is bounded by the LTV target and that nothing is taken if idle money suffices, which sharpens max_usdg slightly but is not new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening clause names a concrete verb and resource: preparing the unsigned transactions that take a Bailouts offer on a version 2 trade account, funded from the wallet's own USDG, followed by bailout(offer_id, amount). That is specific enough to separate it from the sibling listing tool (bailouts) and the post-rescue tools (bailout_claim, bailout_foreclose). It does not name a sibling as an explicit alternative, and the embedded clause describing the approval amount is close to unparseable, which blunts the clarity.

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 gives concrete exclusion conditions: the offer is refused in words when it is under its LTV, expired, already owed a bailout, over its max, or under the long's debt floor, and when the wallet holds too little. It also states 'Rescues run at any hour' and that Borro's keeper never rescues, which tells the agent this is a user-driven path. It never routes the agent to a named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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