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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: no transaction is built, uncurated tickers are refused rather than guessed, the reason for that refusal, and the Authorization Bearer JWT requirement. This materially helps the agent understand failure modes and safety boundaries.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it does not do, how assets resolve with rationale, and the auth requirement. The most important distinction (quote-only, no trade) is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with four optional, fully schema-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description covers selection, invocation, safety, auth, and asset-resolution constraints. The only notable gap is the lack of any return-value shape, since there is no output schema, but this does not block correct invocation.

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. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the strict two-way asset resolution (curated ticker or full mint address), giving concrete ticker examples (SOL, USDC), and warning that uncurated tickers are refused due to spoofing risk. This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('live Jupiter route quote between two assets') and immediately distinguishes itself from trade execution with 'QUOTE ONLY — it builds no transaction and cannot move value.' This is unambiguous and clearly separates it from siblings like signet_action without opening schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent this tool only quotes and cannot move value, which is a clear exclusion against trade/action tools. It does not name an alternative tool like signet_action, but the context and 'QUOTE ONLY' phrasing provide sufficient when-to-use guidance.

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