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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that the tool resolves custody, collateral, prices, policy, balance, oracle-readiness, and simulation before returning a signable transaction. It explicitly warns never to describe the result as ready-to-sign unless transactionBase64 exists and none of the failure fields are present, and it clarifies the signer boundary: hosted builders never receive keypair bytes and value-moving results must be finalized locally. This is strong, actionable behavioral disclosure.

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 paragraph is focused and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and critical safety condition. The second paragraph contains useful execution guidance but partly duplicates the SAP MCP guidance already present in the input schema description. Overall it earns its place with clear labels and no significant fluff, though there is minor 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 high parameter count, complex trading workflow, output schema availability, and close sibling tools, the description covers the essential workflow, pricing steps, signer boundary, and readiness-validation rules. It does not explicitly explain when to choose this intent-level tool over individual build tools, which is a gap, but the critical execution and safety context is sufficiently complete.

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 description does not need to re-document every field. It adds useful context for leverage ('max' meaning maxInitialLeverage) and the intent-level flow, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for poolName, stopLossPct, takeProfitPct, or owner. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without exceeding it.

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: an 'Intent-level Adrena trading API' that takes market, side, USD collateral, and leverage, runs validations, and returns a signable transaction. It is clear about what the tool produces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like sap_adrena_build_open_long or adrena_openPosition, relying mainly on the phrase 'Intent-level' to signal the difference.

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 meaningful execution guidance: it is a paid builder, agents should estimate cost first, use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when needed, and finalize signed transactions locally. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the many related Adrena build/open-position siblings, nor does it give exclusion criteria. Context is useful but alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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