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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: no on-chain transaction occurs, and each call apparently costs $0.001 USDC — a cost signal an agent would otherwise miss entirely.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: action, outputs, chain, non-execution guarantee, and cost. No filler, nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

Return values need no explanation given the output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter behavior — particularly how decimalsIn/decimalsOut interact with the "human units" amountIn and what isStable selects — which the description leaves entirely unaddressed.

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 six parameters at 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented half — isStable, decimalsIn, and decimalsOut — and it does not. It never mentions stable vs. volatile pools or decimal scaling, which materially change simulation results when amountIn is in human units.

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 ("Simulate") plus three concrete outputs (swap outputs, price impact, minimum expected returns) scoped to Aerodrome Base. The phrase "without executing transactions" implicitly separates it from aerodrome_swap, though it does not name that sibling directly.

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 implicit usage is clear enough — simulate before swapping rather than executing — but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (aerodrome_swap, aerodrome_clamm) is given. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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