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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that the builder does not sign, that transactionBase64 is only returned after simulation passes, and that finalization must be gated on safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false. It also clarifies the signer boundary: hosted builders never receive keypair bytes and value-moving results must be finalized locally. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by safety and execution guidance. The SAP MCP execution guidance is useful but duplicated verbatim in the input schema description, adding mild redundancy.

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, the description covers the build intent, pricing/routing flow, simulation gate, approval safety condition, signer boundary, and repeated-use pattern. An agent has enough context to call this correctly, especially with an output schema also present.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter behavior, such as 'For longs: SL below current price. For shorts: SL above current price,' which clarifies how side and trailPct interact beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 action ('Build an unsigned transaction to set a trailing stop loss'), a specific protocol ('Adrena'), and the mechanism ('computes the stop loss at the specified percentage distance'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like open/close/swap builders by its trailing-stop semantics, even without naming alternatives.

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 operational context: it reads the oracle price, applies side-specific stop direction, and should be called repeatedly to keep the stop trailing the price. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trailing-stop use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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