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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe, non-mutating nature. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact computation logic (volatility-based discount/markup), data sources (contract positions, NEAR Intents prices), output format (GO/HOLD/STOP), and operational details (cost per call, no wallet/API key needed). This far exceeds what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear picture of how the tool behaves.

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 dense but well-organized, leading with a question that frames the purpose, then covering computation, outputs, data sources, and requirements in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value — the pricing and no-wallet-needed info are essential for an agent to decide on usage. It's longer than typical but packs no filler.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return structure, but it already mentions GO/HOLD/STOP and the health factor. It covers input, computation, data sources, cost, and prerequisites. For a single-parameter tool with clear scope, nothing essential 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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'account' with a description 'NEAR account' and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats that account is required without adding format details, examples, or edge cases. It doesn't enhance the minimal schema description, so a 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 opens with a direct question that immediately conveys the tool's purpose — assessing proximity to liquidation for a Rhea Lending position. It specifies the resource (Rhea Lending/Burrow on NEAR), the computation method (collateral discounted, debt marked up by volatility), and the outputs (health factor, collateral fall margin, GO/HOLD/STOP). This clearly distinguishes it from other health tools like morpho_health or position_health by naming the exact protocol and chain.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the description is highly specific to Rhea Lending on NEAR, making it obvious that it's intended for that protocol. The required input (account) and pricing details are clearly stated. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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