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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: data source (protocol's own books), conditional behavior when amountUsd is passed, handling of protocols without borrowed-vs-supplied data (marked unmeasured, never recommended as executable), and asset-specific limitations (WETH lacks USD oracle). This is comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded, with four sentences each conveying distinct information: core function, motivation, unmeasured protocols, and asset constraints. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 core outputs, edge cases, and limitations. Since there is no output schema, it explains the nature of results (utilization, liquidity, exit verdict) but does not specify the exact response structure. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but leaves some structural detail unspecified.

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?

Although the schema covers parameter names and basic types, the description adds crucial semantics: asset determines USDC full figures vs WETH utilization-only, and amountUsd triggers an exit verdict. It explains the consequences of omitting amountUsd and clarifies asset-specific behavior, surpassing the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as measuring exit capacity for Base lending markets, specifying outputs such as utilization, withdrawable liquidity, and an optional exit verdict. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling yield tools, but the distinct focus on exit capacity makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: to separate advertised yield from actual ability to exit, noting that high APY at high utilization means a market won't let you out. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear.

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