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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. Since no output schema exists, the description usefully carries the return-content burden by naming the five fields each market includes. It stops short of pagination, ordering, or per-field semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core payload (venues, assets, returned fields) front-loaded and an interpretive note trailing. No filler or restatement of the name, though the second sentence is more nice-to-have than essential.

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 single-optional-enum read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the interpretive purpose, which is enough for correct invocation. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing versus the sibling rate/market tools.

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% and the enum values are self-documenting, so the schema already fully explains the 'index' parameter. The description adds no syntax, default behavior, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 resource (every venue and asset in an index) and enumerates the returned fields (borrow rate, supply rate, utilization, depth, weight), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_rate or get_history, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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 only implied: 'Utilization explains why a rate sits where it does' hints this is a drill-down for explaining a rate, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No alternative sibling is named, so the agent must infer that get_rate is the shallow lookup and this is the deep one.

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