Lends Prepare Borrow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that this tool constructs a transaction rather than executing one, but it does not disclose return format, whether an approval step is needed, or any other behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and it earns its place by conveying the tool's purpose clearly without unnecessary detail.

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 should explain what the constructed transaction looks like or what data is returned; it does not. It also omits parameter semantics and any mention of prerequisites, leaving an agent under-informed for a tool with many similar prepare siblings.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain that 'collateral' is the collateral asset address or that 'amount' is the leUSD amount to borrow, nor does it clarify units or formatting beyond the bare schema patterns.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Construct') and resource ('a leUSD borrowing transaction against collateral'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lends_prepare_deposit or lends_prepare_repay by naming the borrowing action explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lends_prepare_deposit or lends_prepare_withdraw. The description implies its use case through the word 'borrowing', but it does not state preconditions, exclusions, or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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