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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the transaction is unsigned, the builder only returns transactionBase64 after simulation passes, approval is gated by safeToApprove/approvalBlocked, and hosted builders never receive keypair bytes. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 specific return conditions, followed by clearly separated SAP MCP execution guidance. It is longer than a minimal description, but each section adds operational value; the pricing and routing guidance is reused but relevant to correct invocation.

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 annotations, the complete input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: simulation gating, approval conditions, paid-tool routing, signer safety, and local finalization. Nothing needed for correct selection and invocation is missing.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions and enums, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to set stop loss on an Adrena position.' This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like adrena_build_cancel_stop_loss or adrena_build_set_take_profit, and it clearly names the output type (transactionBase64).

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 explicit operational guidance: estimate first via sap_estimate_tool_cost, route through sap_payments_call_paid_tool if x402 is unsupported, and only show approval when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false. It also clarifies the signer boundary and the need to finalize locally, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke the tool.

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