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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the quote is 'indicative', implying the result is not guaranteed executable, which is useful but thin. It does not mention external API dependence, possible staleness, or any further behavioral caveats.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, especially 'indicative' and 'cross-chain', and it is appropriately sized for a simple quote lookup.

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 schema and annotations make the basic invocation understandable, but because there is no output schema, the quote's return shape is left undocumented. The description also relies on the schema's address hint for sourcing currency objects rather than stating this directly, leaving some context incomplete.

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 description provides no parameter-level meaning, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate. An agent has to infer everything from property names and the one address hint in the schema; the tool description itself adds no clarity about fromCurrency, toCurrency, or fromAmount.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('Relay cross-chain swap quote'), and a useful qualifier ('indicative'), which clearly distinguishes this from single-chain quote tools such as baseSwapQuote or ethSwapQuote. An agent can identify the tool's role without needing to inspect the 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use Relay versus other swap-quote siblings, and it does not name any alternatives or exclusions. The word 'cross-chain' implies a use case, but no routing help is provided.

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