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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches live pool state, computes output with slippage protection, and returns instruction parameters for client signing (not executing). This is transparent, though missing details on failure modes or side effects.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, process, and output. Front-loaded with 'Build an AeX402 AMM swap action' and no redundant words.

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 5 parameters, an output schema exists, and description covers the core function (fetch, compute, return). It lacks error handling or prerequisite info, but is sufficient for a builder tool within a known protocol.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about live state and slippage protection but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond schema.

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 builds an AeX402 AMM swap action, with specific verb 'build' and resource 'swap action'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aex402_getPool, aex402_listPools, and aex402_quote by focusing on constructing the swap instruction with live state and parameters for signing.

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 implies usage for building a swap after obtaining pool and quote info, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like quoting first. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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