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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false; the description adds real context they cannot carry — the protocol submits and pays gas, so no ETH balance and no nonce management are required, and a re-posted signed intent cannot execute twice. The replay-safety claim sits slightly awkwardly against idempotentHint=false, but it is best read as 'no double execution' rather than a flat contradiction of the annotation.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the gas/nonce economics, then the call ordering, then replay safety. No sentence is redundant and each adds a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth-by-signature, gas, nonce and replay behavior for a mutation tool. The notable gap is execution semantics — whether this returns immediately with a tx hash or trade id the agent must follow up with kellian_get_trade_status, and whether any consent/permit setup is required first.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns more by pinning the 'intent' argument to the signPayload from kellian_prepare_trade and the signature to the signed payload, which is the critical mapping an agent needs. It says nothing about chainId or the idempotencyKey semantics (the schema covers the latter, chainId remains undocumented in both).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a trade the agent authorized by signature') and disambiguates from the prepare step and the order-placement siblings by naming kellian_prepare_trade as the upstream producer. An agent can tell this apart from place_limit_order or batch_place_orders without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: sign the signPayload from kellian_prepare_trade, then call this. It does not state when this path should be preferred over the direct order-placement siblings (place_limit_order, batch_place_orders) or when a trade should be simulated first with kellian_simulate_trade, so the exclusions are missing.

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