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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it is unsigned, never broadcasts or signs, routes automatically between DBC and DAMM v2, and includes the signer boundary rule. Annotations only indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent; the description clarifies the operational model. No 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 description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a dedicated SAP MCP execution guidance block. It is informative without being redundant, though it is slightly longer than necessary. Each section adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the operation (build unsigned transaction), routing logic, pricing workflow, signer boundary, and exact-in semantics. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and how to handle payment and signing.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, such as the meaning of 'amount' (exact-in, decimal string) and 'poolAddress' (original DBC address). It only reiterates routing behavior without deeper parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build an unsigned exact-in Meteora buy or sell' with automatic routing between DBC and DAMM v2 pools. It explicitly notes 'never broadcasts or signs', distinguishing it as a transaction builder rather than an executor. This separates it from related quote/state 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 SAP MCP execution guidance provides clear context on pricing (estimate first), routing (call sap_estimate_tool_cost, use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if needed), and the signer boundary (hosted builders never receive keypair bytes). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description makes it clear this is for building unsigned transactions and that finalization must occur locally.

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