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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the computation behind 'Your APR' (fees at last week's pace, lending fees and interest, $BORRO Drip at today's rate, lent part weighted 1.5x) and the wallet-scoping behavior. That is real context an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

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 resource is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is a single dense ~100-word sentence that stacks every returned field into one run-on list. The content earns its place, yet the structure makes it hard to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly — size, swap vs lent split, swap/squeeze fees, lending fees and interest, day/week volume, farmer fees, and APR. It is complete for an agent to decide whether the response answers its question.

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 both parameters are documented there (symbol by ticker, optional wallet). The description reinforces this with 'like NVDA' and the note that 'farms lists the stocks that have one,' but adds little semantic depth beyond the schema descriptions, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description opens by identifying the resource precisely (Uniswap v4 USDG/stock pools run by Borro's hook) and then enumerates exactly what data each farm record carries. It is clearly a read/listing tool for farm state, distinguishable from action siblings like farm_deposit or farm_withdraw, though the imperative verb ('list/get') is only implied by the noun-phrase framing.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as markets, market, or farm_deposit/farm_withdraw. The only conditional hint is 'With a wallet, its part of each farm,' which indicates a usage variant but not when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.

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