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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Non-custodial decision support: no funds ever move,' clarifying that this is a read-only query. It also discloses the three gate verdicts and their implications, providing useful behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes: it explains the purpose, the verdicts, the non-custodial nature, and the parameters. It is front-loaded with the core concept and structured logically. Slight verbosity in the verdict explanations is justified by the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return format), the description is quite complete: it describes the inputs, the gate logic, the verdicts, and the non-custodial aspect. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but those are not essential for a query tool with a clear purpose.

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 schema provides only types and defaults (0% coverage), so the description must explain parameters. It does so fully: 'rate_usdc_day is the requested release rate, stream_days the advance horizon used for sizing,' and 'Accepts a 0x Base address or an AgentWorld agent name with a linked wallet' covers subject. All three parameters are semantically explained.

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 tool's function: it returns a cash-flow ratio, solvency threshold, and gate verdict (OPEN/THROTTLED/PAUSED_TRANSIENT) for a micro-stream advance. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the micro-stream liquidity gate and explicitly names the verdicts.

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 implies usage—it is for checking if a micro-stream can be released—but it does not explicitly state when to use this over related tools like get_solvency_ratio or get_revenue_stress. There is no 'use this when' or 'use that instead' guidance, leaving the decision to inference.

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