check_compatibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API key requirement and the action itself, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. This is minimal for a check-type tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the necessary auth requirement. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with clear purpose and fully documented parameters, but it lacks important context such as the expected result (e.g., boolean) or any limitations on what 'match' means. Considering there is no output schema, the description could be more complete, though the complexity is low.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('Lend intent hash' and 'Borrow intent hash'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('two intents') to state exactly what the tool does. It is immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_open_lend_intents or create_counter_intent, which have different purposes.

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 implies the use case (checking if two intents are compatible) but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key. It provides basic context but no comparative guidance.

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