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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the safety gate, that the returned transaction is unsigned and must be signed by the caller's own wallet (non-custodial), the 0.3% platform fee, and that calling is free. It omits slippage defaults and what actually happens on a refused DANGER buy (error vs. partial result).

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 dense sentence that front-loads the safety-check behavior, then the return contract, the fee, and the cost. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does explain the return value (an unsigned Jupiter swap transaction for the caller to sign). For a 6-param mutation tool it is nearly complete; slippage defaults and the failure mode for refused buys are the remaining 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 description coverage is 50%, so half the parameters (mint, side, slippageBps) rely on the description. The buy/sell asymmetry is hinted at via the DANGER-buy rule, but no format, unit, or default guidance is added for slippageBps or the mutually exclusive amountRaw/amountSol fields beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('Build a Solana token swap') plus the distinguishing safety gate ('MOSN refuses buys into DANGER tokens'). It is clearly separable from mosn_token_check, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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: the description tells the agent a swap is safety-checked and that buys into DANGER tokens are refused, but it never says when to pick this over mosn_token_check or mosn_paid_endpoints, and no prerequisites (wallet funding, token-account existence) are given.

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