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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds a plan and does not sign/broadcast, but does not clarify whether it modifies state, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. More detail is needed for full transparency.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information (build plan, approve+swap, not sign/broadcast, chain). It earns its keep but could be slightly improved by adding brief parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how to use required parameters. Significant gaps remain for a tool of this nature.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 9 parameters (owner, tokenIn, amountIn, etc.). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess parameter meaning.

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 builds a non-custodial transaction plan for approve and swap via best venue, and specifies it does not sign or broadcast on chain 4663. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like stocktoken_quote or stocktoken_explain_routing.

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 implies use to get a plan before signing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance, existing approval). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on usage boundaries.

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