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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the unsigned path produces typed data with no transaction and no gas, that the signed path submits to the Borro endpoint, that the typed data expires after 10 minutes, and that only the first binding per wallet stands. These details give an agent rich behavioral context and are consistent with the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core effect and then cleanly splits the unsigned and signed flows. Despite covering several important constraints, every sentence and clause carries actionable information with no waste.

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 two-mode signature/submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what the tool does, how to obtain typed data, how to submit it, the expiration window, and the one-binding-per-wallet rule. An agent has enough information to invoke either path 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 the schema already explains all four parameters, including that signature is omitted to get typed data and timestamp pairs with a submitted signature. The description reinforces the mode dependency but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: crediting a bookrunner's code with a wallet's borrowing on Borro, including the fee consequence. It is clearly distinct from the many sibling trading and credit tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself with them.

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 clearly explains the two modes: omit signature to receive EIP-712 typed data, or include signature and timestamp to submit the binding. The 10-minute validity and one-code-per-wallet rule are useful usage constraints, but it does not discuss alternatives among sibling tools.

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