get_liquidation_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that the tool relies on 'pre-indexed health data,' implying potentially non-real-time data, and that it returns only accounts below the threshold. However, it does not state read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or staleness caveats explicitly.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return criterion is stated succinctly in the second sentence.

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 covers the essential selection criterion and data source, and the schema fills parameter details, but there is no output schema and no annotation safety information. It is adequate for a simple read-only candidate listing, yet it omits details like return shape, ordering, and whether results reflect real-time data.

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 documents all four parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond framing the threshold concept, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 and resource, 'Find accounts eligible for liquidation,' which clearly states what the tool does. It also adds the distinguishing detail 'using pre-indexed health data' and 'below the health factor threshold,' separating it from on-demand scanning tools and from liquidate_txn which performs the actual liquidation.

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 tool should be used when the agent needs a list of accounts eligible for liquidation based on health factor. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_health_factor for a single account or liquidate_txn for executing a liquidation.

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