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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the quote is free, it is a single live quote, it expires in ~30 seconds, and the service is non-custodial.

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 tight sentences: the resource and scope come first, then the expiry and non-custody constraint. No filler wording and nothing buried.

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 pricing tool this covers cost, time validity, and execution responsibility. Minor gap: with no output schema, it does not hint at what the quote returns (price, route, slippage), though that is not strictly required to call it.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (side enum, usd range) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'buy or sell' and 'USD amount', adding no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'one live Jupiter quote to buy or sell GBRIDGE for a USD amount'. The pricing/quoting role is clearly distinct from siblings like gbridge_liquidity or gbridge_token_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Execute with your own wallet; Galactic Bridge never trades for you' plus the ~30s expiry makes the intended flow clear: get a price here, execute externally and quickly. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives against gbridge_market are given.

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