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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a variable-rate order, returns a deposit address, settles directly to settleAddress, and is non-custodial for us, but it omits important creation behavior such as rate expiration, refund handling, address validity requirements, and side effects.

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 two short, front-loaded clauses with no wasted language: it states the action, the return value, and the settlement model immediately.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. The output schema covers the return value, but the description still lacks parameter semantics, prerequisites, and behavioral details needed to invoke it safely.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that funds settle to settleAddress, leaving depositCoin, settleCoin, networks, refundAddress, settleMemo, and depositNetwork unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a variable-rate SideShift order,' and distinguishes it from siblings like crosschain_rate and shift_status by stating this creates an order and returns a deposit address.

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 purpose implies when to use it—to initiate a cross-chain shift—but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus crosschain_rate for quoting or shift_status for tracking, nor does it list any exclusions.

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