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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it mentions the one-call nature, the deferred dependency on Morpho's API, the default market, pricing, free-call quota, and the requirement of no wallet/API key. It does not contradict annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't explain what happens on error or whether the output schema is fully populated in edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core question and purpose. It includes some promotional and pricing language ('Built for borrowing agents and treasuries', 'Not financial advice') that adds length but is arguably useful for AI selection. Every sentence contributes to understanding when/how to use it, with only slight padding.

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 two simple parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers core usage well. It spells out pricing, free tier, required input, and default market. It could be more complete by stating what happens for unsupported markets or how to interpret output, but the output schema likely carries that burden. A 4 is fair for this complexity level.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying 'wallet' is the borrower wallet and 'market' defaults to cbBTC/USDC. It also contextualizes the wallet parameter as the position owner. This is value beyond the schema, though not exhaustive.

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 opens with a concrete question, states a specific verb ('reads'), names the resource (Morpho Blue position on Base), and specifies outputs (health factor, LTVs, collateral price drop). It also differentiates itself from siblings by being explicitly 'first lending tooling' and mentioning Morpho's API is deferred, which is a clear exclusive scope.

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 explicitly states required input (wallet), optional parameter (market, defaults to cbBTC/USDC), and pricing/access conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the 'first lending tooling in the catalog' phrase implies it is the designated choice for Morpho positions. It lacks an explicit 'use when not...' exclusion, but the context is clear.

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