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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: the output is unsigned material requiring external signing, trades on fee-enabled swaps carry a 0.85% fee, and the tool stops short of authorize/sign/submit/confirm. The annotations already convey non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the fee and unsigned-output disclosure are the meaningful increments.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and the exclusion ('Not a launch/create-token tool') and boundary ('does NOT authorize...') are placed where they matter. Terse fragments are efficient, though 'NFA' is ambiguous jargon for an agent.

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, no-output-schema build tool with 43% schema coverage, the description should say more about what the returned 'unsigned swap material' looks like and confirm the quote-then-build ordering. It covers safety and fees well but leaves parameter and output expectations under-specified.

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 only 43%, yet the description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond restating side (buy/sell). It never explains chain, amount units, or slippageBps, and only implicitly ties the quote parameter to a prior quote call. Modest help over a thin schema.

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 and resource ('Builds unsigned swap material') plus scope ('buy (or sell) a listed meme coin') and the backing endpoint. It explicitly rules out the closest confusable sibling job by saying 'Not a launch/create-token tool', so an agent can separate it from create/credential and token 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?

Gives clear usage context: this produces material a wallet must review and sign, and it does NOT authorize, sign, submit or confirm. That defines the handoff boundary, though it never explicitly says to call memeswap_quote first (only the schema's quote description implies the ordering) and states no exclusion relative to memeswap_xquote.

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