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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is a firm bid priced from live DEX data, has a ~15 minute TTL on quote_id, and that reservation happens via separate authenticated REST. This enriches the behavioral profile 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists key outputs and constraints. It is efficient, though slightly run-on, and every phrase adds value. It could be split into two sentences for readability but remains concise.

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 read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the return fields, mentions the TTL, and notes that reservation is separate. It does not cover error conditions, but that is not essential for a simple quote operation. The context signals confirm no nested objects or output schema, so the description carries sufficient information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (chain, amount_tokens, contract_address) are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: obtaining a firm USDC bid for a dead/delisted token from the Dead-Coin Buyback Desk. It lists the return fields (tier, bid_usdc, discount, quote_id) and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_deadcoin_desk_info, which provides desk info rather than quotes.

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 its usage: to get a quote for a dead token position. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings like get_deadcoin_desk_info. The mention of 'reserve via authenticated REST' clarifies that this tool only quotes and does not reserve.

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