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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it runs the same feasibility/quote pipeline as prepare and deliberately returns no signable calldata, but it says nothing about latency, rate limits, or whether the simulation reads live on-chain state versus cached data.

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 definition is short and front-loads the key distinction (same pipeline, no signable calldata). The trailing 'Examples:' line is awkwardly phrased and contributes little, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. However, for a 9-parameter trading tool with 67% schema coverage, the description should say more about when to simulate versus prepare and about walletAddress/amount constraints that the schema only partly covers.

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 only 67%, with chainId and slippageBps undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; the single hint that the body mirrors prepare is marginal and does not compensate for the gaps in the 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 gives a specific verb ('Dry-run a trade') and resource, and explicitly contrasts itself with 'prepare' by noting it omits signable calldata. An agent can distinguish it from problee_prepare_trade without opening either schema, though the sibling is referenced only as '/prepare' rather than by tool name.

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 rather than stated: 'Examples: Dry-run the same body used for prepare' hints at validating a prepare body first, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternatives such as problee_prepare_trade versus problee_get_quote. The agent must infer the workflow.

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