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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: it emits unsigned transactions for the wallet to sign, prices at execution time with 0.5% slippage tolerance, runs as a simulation, and routes rebate_estimate into the weekly locker. It stops short of stating failure modes (insufficient collateral, unapproved asset) or what the response looks like structurally.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the execution sequence, then pricing/slippage, then the rebate semantics. No filler; each clause adds either mechanics or economics.

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 covers the return contract at a useful level: unsigned transactions plus a quote carrying rebate_estimate and a 0.5% slippage bound. Missing is the concrete shape of the returned payload (e.g. a transaction list vs. a single tx) and any error/collateral preconditions.

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%, so all four parameters including the optional deposit are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning, tying 'deposit' to 'the money held' beyond the sale and 'wallet' to 'built for it to sign' — consistent with the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Unsigned transactions to short a stock from the wallet') and names the concrete protocol call it emits (BorroShort.open), including the borrow-sell-hold mechanics. An agent can distinguish this from open_long, borrow, and close_short without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the phrase 'approve the deposit if needed', which signals a prerequisite step when allowance is insufficient. However, no alternative is named (e.g. when to prefer open_pair, borrow, or close_short) and there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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