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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important traits: non-custodial operation, unsigned steps or deposit address, 60+ chain coverage, and a 0.2% app fee. It omits other operationally relevant details such as quote expiry, auth requirements, rate limits, and whether a deposit address creates persistent state.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with what the tool does, then adds chain coverage, return modes, and fee disclosure. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It explains return modes and fees but leaves most optional parameters and important quote lifecycle behavior undocumented.

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 low at 33%, so the description should compensate for the six undocumented parameters, but it does not explain chain IDs, refundTo, recipient, destinationCurrency, or amount units. The only indirect parameter relevance is the mention of unsigned steps versus a deposit address, which hints at useDepositAddress without naming or explaining it.

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 states a specific action and resource: a live non-custodial bridge/swap quote via Relay. It also clarifies the output modes (unsigned steps or a deposit address), making it clearly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling list tools.

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 by the phrase 'bridge/swap quote,' so an agent can infer this is the tool for obtaining a cross-chain quote. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for comparison.

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