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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 0.5% fee already deducted from the quote, that six routers are compared, that TRNCH itself broadcasts nothing ('Nothing is sent by TRNCH'), the exact return shape, the chainId, and error semantics for 409 (token not tradable via TIA) and 429 (retry-after). Those are precisely the behavioral facts an agent needs before committing to a trade.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the parameters, then the return contract, then errors and auth — each sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler, even though the total is longer than average.

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?

With no output schema available, the description supplies the return fields ({ router, quote, approval, tx, chainId, from }) and the ordering rule for approval. Combined with auth, error codes, and the no-broadcast guarantee, an agent can call this correctly and handle the response without further 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 all five parameters are already documented. The description restates the either/or pairings (tokenId or token, percent or amount) and notes the balance is read on chain, but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a fully covered schema is appropriate.

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 — 'Build a sell for USDG in one call' — and immediately qualifies scope: quotes six routers, returns the best route as a transaction. An agent can distinguish this from trnch_buy and from quote-only siblings without opening any schema.

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 concrete invocation guidance (tokenId or token, percent or exact amount) and the API-key prerequisite from trnch_register, plus a clear post-call procedure ('if approval is not null, send it first, then sign and send tx'). It stops short of explicitly routing against siblings — e.g., no statement that trnch_quote is the preview-only alternative to this build-and-sign path.

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