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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial operational details: Otto never sees or holds the private key, never submits on the user's behalf, and describes the api_key issuance. It thoroughly explains the tool's safety boundary and execution model.

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 dense but well-structured, using dashes to delineate parameters and key actions. Every sentence adds value, balancing detail with readability.

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?

It specifies the exact return fields needed to build and sign the transaction (tx.to, tx.data, tx.value, min_buy_amount) and explains the self-execution flow. For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, this is comprehensive and leaves minimal ambiguity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining api_key, sell_token/buy_token as contract addresses, sell_amount in human units (e.g., '25' USDG), and taker as the signing wallet. However, it omits slippage_bps, which is only present in the schema with a default.

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 opens with 'Get an UNSIGNED Rialto swap quote for an approved partner,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and unique scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_onchain_swap by emphasizing the unsigned nature and self-broadcast requirement.

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?

It explicitly states the user must sign and broadcast the transaction themselves, and instructs to call partner_report_fill after broadcasting. This gives clear usage context and a follow-up step, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for non-partner or fully-executed swaps.

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