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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses that the score is slippage-only, that high scores do not imply overall success, that reverts/MEV are separate, and that cross-chain blending can be misread. These are the behaviors an agent needs to avoid misreporting.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and scale, then uses two short paragraphs for caveats that each earn their place. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a two-parameter ranking tool with no output schema, this is complete: it explains what the score means, how to interpret it, which sibling covers adjacent metrics, and how to handle the chain parameter. An agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds real meaning to `chain`, explaining single-chain vs 'all' semantics and the blending pitfall. `limit` is left to its self-evident name and default, which is acceptable for such a generic parameter, though accepted chain values are not enumerated.

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 a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('DEXs and aggregators'), defines the exact metric (median slippage vs 1-minute VWAP) and the scale (0-100, higher better). It also distinguishes itself from sibling `revert_rates` by explicitly excluding reverts and MEV exposure, so an agent can tell tools apart.

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 says when not to use this as an overall best-execution ranking and directs the caller to ask `revert_rates` for reverts. It also gives concrete chain usage rules: pass a chain for single-chain, use 'all' for the blended rollup, and warns not to describe the blend as one chain's result.

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