get_open_lend_intents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement and implies a read-only operation via 'browse,' but does not mention pagination, response format, or rate limits. Adds some context but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 sentences, both valuable: the first conveys purpose, the second conveys auth requirement. No fluff, front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the absence of an output schema means the description should explain what a successful response contains (e.g., list of offers with fields). It does not, and it omits any mention of default pagination or how to inspect individual intents via sibling 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%, so skip and limit are fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('browse') and resource ('open lend offers') with the purpose 'available for borrowing against.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_open_borrow_intents and create_lend_intent by focusing on reading existing lend intents.

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?

States a clear prerequisite ('Requires any Floe API key') and implies usage context (to find lend offers to borrow against). Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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