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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it returns transactionBase64 only after simulation passes, requires local finalization when signing is needed, and clarifies that the builder never receives keypair bytes. These are not inferable from annotations or schema alone, so the description carries the burden well without contradicting structured data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and fill condition, which is good. However, the entire SAP MCP execution guidance block is duplicated verbatim in the schema description, wasting space. The two-paragraph structure is acceptable but could be tightened by removing redundant SAP guidance and focusing only on tool-specific nuances.

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 complexity (8 params, 7 required, output schema present), the description covers essential aspects: the limit-order mechanism, simulation gate, approval safety check, and signer boundary. It doesn't explain return values (not needed since output schema exists) or error cases, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in typical scenarios.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description rephrases some (e.g., triggerPriceUsd) but doesn't introduce new meaning or clarify ambiguous relationships (e.g., how limitPriceUsd interacts with triggerPriceUsd). The description adds marginal value over the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Build an unsigned transaction to place a limit order on Adrena' and adds the fill condition ('The order fills when the oracle price reaches the trigger price'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sap_adrena_build_open_long or adrena_openPosition by specifying the limit-order mechanism, making it 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 concrete execution guidance: estimate first, pay/build, finalize locally, and explicit conditions for showing approval ('safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false'). It also explains when to use the paid builder pattern (call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if x402 not supported). This goes beyond a mere statement of what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools for limit orders (e.g., jupiter_createLimitOrder).

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