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

Far exceeds the annotation bar: it discloses the liquidation LTV cap and refusal behavior, health-factor reporting, absence of a Panda fee, the one-time bundler authorization on first borrow, and that outputs are simulated unsigned transactions returned in order or as an EIP-5792 batch with a sign_url. 'Nothing is sent' corroborates the readOnlyHint rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, then behavioral caveats, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. The parentheticals and stacked clauses make it slightly dense, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 fully carries the return contract (ordered unsigned txs, optional batch, sign_url) and the failure condition. An agent has everything needed to call it and handle the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so wallet, borrow_usdc, and collateral_weth are already documented. The description's 'and/or' confirms both amount params are optional and combinable, but adds no format or unit detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 specific verbs (add collateral, borrow) and resources (WETH collateral, USDC) plus the exact venue (Morpho WETH/USDC market). An agent can distinguish this from build_repay, build_withdraw_collateral, or build_lend_supply 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 through the 'and/or' framing and the 86% LTV refusal rule, which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling tools like build_repay or build_lend_supply, leaving routing to inference.

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