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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable nuance: the tool 'only CREATES a pending proposal,' does not record anything until confirm_proposal is called, and validates that the user holds enough of the source. This provides meaningful transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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 generally well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by operational notes on confirmation, validation, and optional value handling. It is a bit long, and the final 'MCP note' partly duplicates the earlier pending-proposal caveat, but most sentences carry substantive guidance.

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 an 8-parameter, 6-required tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the return value, the mandatory follow-up with confirm_proposal, the validation behavior, and the optional value semantics. It gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and understand the consequences in context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail, including the meaning of 'value' (major units, cost basis, optional auto-derive). The description repeats some of this and adds the 'one shared value' phrasing, but it does not materially compensate for anything missing. It stays at the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Propose converting one asset into another' with an example ('spend SOL to acquire a new coin') and states the key distinction from other tools: it is a cashless swap that 'moves no cash account.' This effectively differentiates it from cash-related or transaction-capture siblings without confusion.

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 clearly tells the agent the follow-up usage: 'call the confirm_proposal tool with the returned proposalId after the user approves' and explains that there is no UI button to click. It establishes when the tool is appropriate (creating a pending proposal) and explicitly distinguishes creating from recording, but it doesn't name alternative sibling tools or say when to prefer them.

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