getCryptoLoanCommonAdjustmentHistory

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already known. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing authentication requirements, rate limiting ('5 requests per time window per UID'), pagination behavior, status tracking, and the before/after LTV fields. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary followed by Features, Use Cases, and Query Modes. Each bullet earns its place and the information is easy to scan. There is minor repetition of pagination, but overall it is appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and multiple query modes.

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?

Given there is no output schema and parameter descriptions are absent, the description covers the essential operational context: auth, rate limits, query modes, pagination, LTV before/after, and status tracking. It does not specify pagination parameter bounds, response shape beyond LTV/status, or permission requirements, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: the 'Query Modes' section explains that adjustId returns a specific adjustment without pagination, collateralCurrency filters by currency with pagination, and omitting both returns complete history. It does not detail limit/cursor defaults or formats, but it adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query historical collateral adjustment operations with pagination support.' It clearly distinguishes this from related loan history tools by emphasizing collateral adjustments, LTV before/after, and adjustment status, making it easy for an agent to identify the tool's unique purpose.

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 provides clear context through 'Use Cases' and 'Query Modes,' telling the agent when to use the tool (reviewing past collateral adjustments, auditing, tracking LTV changes). However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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