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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the rate limit (20 calls/minute, max one per 3 seconds) and by stating that the returned config is a 'recommended default' rather than an authoritative current state. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct value: the operation and output, the intended use case and alternative, and rate-limit constraints. The most identifying information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the call returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and operational constraints. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 for the single token parameter is 100%, with the schema already explaining it is a token symbol and providing examples. The description echoes this but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, such as validation rules or supported-token caveats, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('MetaLend's recommended default rebalancer configuration'), and a target ('given token symbol'), and lists the returned fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_config, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition ('Intended for wallets with no existing config yet') and names the alternative tool for the opposite case ('for an existing wallet's current config use get_config instead'). It also adds practical rate-limit guidance, which helps agents avoid throttling.

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