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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are ordered worst-first, limit_used is defined with 1 meaning immediately liquidatable, status thresholds (warn 0.85, danger 0.95) are spelled out. It does not cover pagination, empty-wallet behavior, or auth, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the audience and the core output ordering before enumerating fields. The field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists. The trailing 'Also at /health/<wallet>.json' is minor clutter but still conveys an alternate access path.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly: ordering, limit_used, health as its reciprocal, liquidation price, distance in percent, status bands, and market clock. It leaves open what happens for a wallet with no shorts or USDG loans, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already tells the agent the wallet address is required. The description adds no format hints or edge-case handling (e.g., checksummed vs lowercase addresses) beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: every short and USDG loan of one wallet, sorted worst-first, plus liquidation pricing. It is clearly a read-only health/liquidation report rather than a position or market query. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'position' or 'prices', which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

The opener 'For bots that watch for liquidation' gives a use case, which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., 'use position for a full position breakdown'). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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