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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description explains WHY that is consistent: the output is an unsigned transaction the caller must sign and submit. It also discloses the prerequisite ordering and the meaning of rebate_estimate as a weekly locker rebate, both beyond structured fields. It does not describe the returned transaction payload itself.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and prerequisite front-loaded; no filler. The second sentence about rebate_estimate is informative but slightly cryptic since no quote parameter or quote step is defined here.

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 three-parameter prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the unsigned-and-sign workflow, and one notable return field. What is missing is the shape of the returned transaction object and any confirmation step, which the absent output schema leaves to the description.

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 all three required params are documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail for wallet/symbol/amount, and its reference to "the quote's rebate_estimate" introduces a concept with no corresponding parameter, leaving that reference unanchored.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Unsigned transaction to borrow USDG") plus the collateral condition ("stock already lent and posted"), which separates it from sibling supply/repay tools. An agent can tell this is a prepare-only borrow against posted collateral without opening the schema.

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 prerequisite in "supply with post: true first", which tells the agent the ordering against the sibling supply tool. It stops short of naming the alternatives for the opposite actions (repay, withdraw) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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