zest_borrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it warns about collateral/LTV health, describes the three LTV tiers and liquidation thresholds (~75%/85%/95%), and notes mainnet-only availability. It omits some operational details such as interest accrual, whether collateral must first be enabled, and what the call returns or requires for signing.

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 reasonably front-loaded and structured with notes for market version, risk, and network availability. It has minor redundancy between the first two sentences and the trailing earning_opportunities tip is useful but slightly tangential.

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?

For a borrow operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical risk and eligibility context: collateral, LTV/liquidation tiers, and mainnet-only availability. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisite actions such as supplying/enabling collateral or explaining transaction/return behavior.

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 both parameters are already well documented. The description repeats that the asset can be a symbol or full contract ID, but adds no meaning beyond the schema for 'asset' or 'amount'.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Borrow assets from Zest Protocol (v0-4-market)' and clarifies that the action is against supplied collateral. It is clearly distinct in ordinary language from siblings like zest_supply, zest_withdraw, and zest_repay, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It provides clear usage context: collateral must be sufficient to maintain a healthy LTV, and Zest Protocol is only available on mainnet. It does not state when-not to use it or explicitly contrast it with sibling operations such as zest_repay or zest_supply.

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