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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it is free, charges no x402, simulates rather than executes, returns no transaction bytes, and only proceeds when oracle coverage can satisfy the pool. It also states the signer boundary that hosted builders never receive keypair bytes. This is strong context despite readOnlyHint=false, and there is no direct contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and effective, but the second 'SAP MCP execution guidance' paragraph is generic boilerplate that also appears in the input schema description. It contains useful routing/signer context, but the duplication makes the description less concise than it could be.

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 covers cost, execution boundary, success conditions, and return fields, while the output schema and parameter descriptions cover remaining details. It could be more complete by naming the exact sibling build/open tools an agent should use after a successful simulation, but overall it gives an agent enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for every parameter, including enums and default behavior for poolName. The description adds no unique parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 and resource: a 'FREE dry-run tool' that 'simulates opening a perp position' and returns oracleReadiness, balanceCheck, program logs, compute units, and wouldSucceed. It clearly distinguishes itself from paid building by saying 'Use this before any paid build.' This makes the tool's purpose and boundary easy for an agent to identify.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this before any paid build' and only build after wouldSucceed=true and oracleReadiness.ready=true. It also clarifies routing ('free hosted call; call directly') and the signer boundary. It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool such as adrena_openPosition, but the dry-run/paid-build contrast is clear enough.

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