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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reads from the chain, reports fee-on-transfer settings, specifies a 3% tax and minimum 15% slippage, and warns that a naive swap reverts without this data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, enumerates the key content, and ends with a functional warning that justifies the tool's existence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no input schema properties and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive and why it matters. It lists the critical fields, the fee-on-transfer behavior, and the consequence of skipping this tool. This is complete for a zero-parameter read-only info tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a no-input info tool. Baseline 4 applies 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to report the DEX parameters needed for a $BOBAI trade, including router, pair, swap paths, and fee-on-transfer settings. It is specific about what is read and reported, and the mention of a naive swap reverting distinguishes it from general price or liquidity tools.

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 gives clear context that this is the tool to use before executing a $BOBAI trade, since a naive swap without these parameters reverts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it over siblings like bobai_price or bobai_liquidity.

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