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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the flexible sellAmount formats (token units, USD budget, 'max') and the return type (normalized conditionalOrderHandoff). This gives the agent useful behavioral details without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause informs usage. No filler or repetition of schema fields. The description is efficiently structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose, input flexibility, chain, and output type. No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned. It does not mention slippage or exact-output alternatives, but for a quote tool with strong annotations and detailed schema, this is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for sellAmount, including the 'Never convert a user's USD budget yourself' instruction. The tool description essentially repeats the sellAmount semantics and adds the return type context. It does not add meaning to buyTokenAddress or sellTokenAddress beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Quote'), states the resource ('Base swap'), and clarifies the scope ('exact-input'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling swap quote tools by naming 'Base' and the input type. The phrase 'for explicit entry or exit orders' adds further specificity.

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 gives clear context: it quotes exact-input Base swaps and mentions the output (conditionalOrderHandoff) suitable for entry/exit orders. It does not explicitly say 'use this for Base chain, not for other chains', but the 'Base' keyword and the existence of sibling tools like ethSwapQuote and bscSwapQuote make the intended context clear. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, which is acceptable for a quote tool.

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