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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: the transaction is never broadcast, NFT ephemerals are co-signed, the payer is the only external signer, and hosted builders never receive keypair bytes. These details meaningfully shape agent expectations and are not merely restating readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. No contradiction exists with the 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses labeled SAP MCP guidance to structure the rest. Some redundancy exists ('never broadcasts' and 'finalize unsigned transactions locally' are repeated in different forms), but every sentence contributes useful execution or signer-boundary information.

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 preconditions (curve threshold, allowlisted destination), execution semantics (unsigned, no broadcast, co-signed ephemerals), pricing/routing via SAP guidance, and signer safety. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. This is complete for a complex hosted transaction builder.

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 baseline is 3, but the description elevates it by adding cross-parameter context: 'destination must be server-allowlisted' and 'payer remains the only external signer' clarify constraints beyond the schema field descriptions. It does not fully explain each parameter, but it compensates with meaningful operational meaning.

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 ('Build'), a precise resource ('unsigned official Meteora DBC to DAMM v2 migration'), and a clear condition ('after the curve reaches its threshold'). It also differentiates itself from nearby Meteora siblings like sap_meteora_build_launchpad_trade by focusing on migration rather than trading, and 'unsigned' plus 'never broadcasts' sets it apart from submission tools.

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 context for when to use the tool: after the curve threshold, when the destination is server-allowlisted, and when the caller needs an unsigned builder that never broadcasts. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the operational guidance (estimate first, route via sap_payments_call_paid_tool, finalize locally) is strong enough to guide selection.

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