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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond stating the action. It does not disclose potential outcomes (e.g., transfer of tokens, what happens if no fees), side effects, or error cases. Boilerplate SAP instructions dominate the description rather than tool-specific behavior.

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 overly verbose due to repeated boilerplate about SAP MCP context, which could be abstracted or placed elsewhere. The first sentence is concise, but the remainder is generic and detracts from readability. The structure is not front-loaded effectively.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (output schema exists but not referenced), nor does it cover edge cases or operational context (e.g., requiring an existing position, transaction costs). While the SAP MCP context may be needed for the platform, it does not complete the picture for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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%, so the schema already defines the parameters (wallet and positionMint). The tool description does not add any additional explanation or context about these parameters beyond what is in the schema, so it remains at baseline.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Collect accumulated fees from a Whirlpool position.' This effectively states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling Orca tools (closePosition, openPosition, swap, getWhirlpool).

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 extensive but generic SAP MCP context (pricing, routing, signer boundary) that does not offer specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing position with uncollected fees. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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