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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the data categories returned, but it does not address auth needs, rate limits, or response structure beyond listing fields.

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 a single sprawling run-on sentence with dense parenthetical nesting. It front-loads the purpose, but the structure makes it hard to scan and parse efficiently.

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 return content and does so comprehensively, covering stock lent, shorts, loans, pairs, gap covers, options, bear coins, claims, rebates, and balances. It lacks formal structure, but the content is substantially complete for a read-only position aggregator.

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?

The single wallet parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that transactions are built for it to sign. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the resource: an aggregate snapshot of everything a wallet has on Borro, followed by an enumeration of position categories. It is specific enough to identify the tool as a wallet-position reader, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as health or markets.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer it retrieves wallet positions, but the definition does not route the agent among siblings.

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