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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the pricing model (free, no x402), the routing expectation (direct hosted call), and the signer boundary ('hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required'). It also clarifies the semantic limits of the result (availability ≠ approval). There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false — a 'readiness check' that 'returns' info sounds read-only — but the description never explicitly claims read-only behavior, so this is not a hard contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical caveat follows immediately. The second paragraph is labeled boilerplate (Intent/Pricing/Routing/Signer boundary) that is likely shared across SAP tools; mostly relevant here, though 'Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow' adds little. Compact overall with no wasted sentences.

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?

With an output schema present and only one optional parameter, the return format is already covered. The description supplies the essential contextual pieces: what capability it checks, the dry-run requirement before paid builds, free routing, and the signer boundary. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool safely and interpret its result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single optional 'venue' parameter is already documented with examples ('adrena' or 'sap-perps-provider'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 ('Free readiness check for perps execution') and precisely defines the return value: whether SAP MCP has native Adrena perps builders or a configured hosted unsigned transaction builder. It's clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling build_* tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 strong operational guidance: it's free, call directly without x402, and keep the call small/exact. The critical boundary is explicit — 'Builder availability is not execution approval: agents must dry-run the exact market/side/collateral/leverage before requesting a paid build or showing approval' — which tells the agent when not to treat the result as sufficient. However, it doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., sap_adrena_oracle_readiness) or state when to prefer a different readiness check.

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