Get borrow quote

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral context — and it does: the amount is explicitly an estimate, the binding rate comes from a live quote at borrow time, and it explains why the pool may show no capacity (tax status, oracle checks). That is real added value beyond structured fields, though it doesn't discuss auth requirements or rate limiting.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the two closing sentences ('The amount is an estimate...') carry important caveats. The middle is a single heavy run-on sentence enumerating return fields and enum values, which is dense but largely earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: pool liquidity and max loan, existing loan status, no-capacity reasons, the limitedBy enum values, collateral price and LTV derivation. An agent has enough to interpret the response and set expectations about estimate vs. live rate.

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% for both slug and tokenId, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about how slug vs tokenId are used or which is required, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get borrowing options for a specific tokenized property', then names the exact payload (pool liquidity, max loan, durations, existing loan status, limiting factors). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_lending_market (market-level data) or get_valuation (property valuation), so an agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an implied usage cue by stating the user question it answers ('How much can I borrow against this property?'), which helps an agent recognize the intent. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions (e.g. get_lending_market for pool-level rates), so guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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