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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses that rates and amounts are caller-supplied, no rates or fees are invented, reserve and payout timing are conditional on underwriting rather than promises, and no money moves. These are meaningful operational limits that an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 and mostly efficient, with each sentence adding purpose or behavior. There is minor redundancy around caller-supplied rates and not inventing rates/fees, but no major bloat.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavioral boundaries well and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a five-parameter planning tool with no schema descriptions, however, input guidance is thin, so the definition is only moderately complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the five inputs. It loosely maps 'caller-supplied amounts' and 'exchange-rate assumptions' to two parameters, but it does not explain notes, the currency arrays, item constraints, or max lengths, leaving most parameter meaning to the bare schema.

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 names a concrete action ('Build a route table') and the exact resource domain ('customer payment currencies to desired settlement currencies'), and it states the key determinations (conversion required, route documented). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as estimate_payout_schedule, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a planning/simulation step that uses caller-supplied amounts and rates and does not move money. However, the description never says when to choose this tool over sibling planning or payout tools, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

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