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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the result is indicative, non-executing, and time-limited (expiring quotes), which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: what it is, what it does not do, and what to do next. The non-execution caveat is front-loaded ahead of the pipeline advice.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say more about the quote payload, and the six parameters (four required) are largely undocumented given the 17% schema coverage. It is adequate about workflow position but incomplete about inputs and return shape.

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 only 17% — only 'amount' carries a description and 'side' has an enum. The description names no parameters at all, leaving chain, token, from, and slippageBps undocumented in both places, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Indicative buy/sell quote for a listed meme coin') and pins the underlying endpoint (GET /api/quote). The phrase 'Does not execute' immediately distinguishes it from the write-side sibling memeswap_build.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up step ('Next step: memeswap_build') and gives a timing rule ('Quotes can expire; request a fresh quote before build'), which is strong contextual guidance. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this over the sibling memeswap_xquote, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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