Check a collateral size against Keel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful semantics by explaining the two binding-limit modes (liquidation vs manipulation) and by warning that 'unknown' is neither safe nor unsafe. It does not cover freshness of the published figures or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison, then the two limit types, then the result vocabulary. Every sentence carries content, though the parenthetical explanation of manipulation/liquidation is slightly verbose for a description whose schema already carries the naming 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return vocabulary (within/exceeds/unknown) and interprets the ambiguous value. For a three-parameter read-only tool this covers everything an agent needs before calling.

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 the schema already fully documents assetId, amount, and quote, including the CODE:ISSUER format and string-for-precision rationale. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('compares a proposed collateral amount with Keel's recommended maximum safe collateral size') and explicitly scopes it as a comparison against published figures rather than a credit decision, which separates it from risk/underwriting siblings like get_asset_risk.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies and draws a boundary ('not a credit decision'), and the schema points to find_asset when only a code is known. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives such as get_asset_risk or compare_assets and the conditions that would select them.

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