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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the call does not execute a swap, and quotes have a finite validity window requiring a refresh before build. That temporal/expiry constraint is not derivable from the 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the non-execution fact and the expiry warning are both front-loaded and each earns its place.

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 and the description never characterizes the quote result (price, route, expiry timestamp), nor does it cover the undocumented required parameters. For a 6-parameter read tool with 17% schema coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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' is documented), so the description carries the burden for chain, side, token, from, and slippageBps. It mentions none of them, leaving the enum for 'side', the token identifier format, and slippageBps semantics entirely 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?

States a specific verb+resource (indicative swap quote) and explicitly scopes it as non-executing, which distinguishes it from memeswap_build. It does not name the sibling it competes with (memeswap_xquote) directly, but the 'does not execute / before build' framing makes its role separable.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: get a quote here, then build, and re-quote if it has expired. This tells the agent when to call it relative to memeswap_build. No explicit exclusions or comparison against memeswap_xquote, which is the one remaining gap.

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