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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and a closed-world profile, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the check is deterministic, costs nothing ('FREE'), and involves no signing or wallet action — traits not present in the annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with cost and the key constraint, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 no-output-schema tool with a deeply nested two-parameter input, the safety/cost framing is complete but the input semantics are entirely unaddressed and the sibling disambiguation is absent, leaving the agent under-equipped on the mechanics of calling 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 description coverage is 0% and both params (action, policy) are complex nested objects with many sub-fields. The description only gestures at 'policy' without explaining any field semantics (e.g., allowed_routers, acknowledge_unconstrained, atomic amounts), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('inspect'), resource ('swap'), and unusually precise scope ('narrow Base USDC-to-WETH direct Uniswap V3'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling swap tools observe_swap and preflight_swap, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between inspect/observe/preflight.

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?

'Against explicit policy' + 'No wallet action or signing' implies this is a validation step, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement versus observe_swap or preflight_swap. Usage is only weakly implied.

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