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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond them — the values are fixed on-chain facts, the 3% tax drives a ~6% slippage requirement, and a naive swap reverts without this data. It doesn't describe the response shape in detail, but for a static-parameter tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the contents, then the usage rule — the ordering is right and there is no filler. The heavy parenthetical nesting around the tax/slippage figures makes it denser than it needs to be, costing a point.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so by enumerating the concrete fields (router, pair, both swap paths, fee settings, SupportingFeeOnTransferTokens method names). An agent knows what it will get and why it needs it before calling.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description instead characterizes the payload (router, pair, both paths, tax, slippage, method names), which is the useful analogue here.

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: it reports the DEX parameters a $BOBAI trade needs — router, pair, swap paths, fee-on-transfer settings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from bobai_purchase_guide (ready-made code) and implicitly from the pancakeswap_* siblings, so an agent can route without opening a 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 trigger ('use it before writing your own swap code') and names the alternative with its selection condition ('for ready-made code use bobai_purchase_guide'). The when-not is stated as a direct fork, not left to inference.

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