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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'recommends' and 'identifies blocked routes', returns a ranked list with compliance flags and warnings. No contradictions exist.

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 compact two-sentence block. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and scope. Every phrase adds value—regulatory fit, gas economics, DPX support, specific stablecoin names, and concrete blocked route examples. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and annotations that cover safety. The description fully captures what the tool does, what inputs are needed, what outputs to expect (ranked list with regulatory flags, compliance status, liquidity tier, warnings), and provides real-world examples. For a query tool with good structured metadata, this is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to 'amountUsd' by stating it's 'used for liquidity tier and large-amount warnings', which is not in the schema description. For 'from' and 'to', the description reinforces their role but doesn't add new semantics. Overall, the description enriches the understanding of how parameters affect behavior.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Multi-stablecoin settlement routing' that 'recommends the optimal stablecoin path'. It specifies the inputs (source and destination currency pair) and outputs (ranked list with regulatory flags, compliance, liquidity, warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stability.corridor' or 'route' by focusing on optimal stablecoin selection with regulatory context.

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 explicitly advises when to use: 'Use before settlement to avoid regulatory penalties and ensure optimal execution path.' While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, this clear directive is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary context. The presence of sibling tools like 'stability.corridor' implies alternatives exist but are not explicitly contrasted.

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