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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return contents (expected output, price impact, effective fee, slippage, SEC disclaimer) and clarifies the advisory nature of venue_hint, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, front-loaded with the read-only and no-execution note, and uses backticks for code-like parameters. Every sentence adds meaningful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure. The description covers the tool's purpose, key parameter semantics (amount, venue_hint), and returns conceptually. Minor gaps remain for unclarified parameters (symbol, caller_id, slippage_bps), but these are commonly understood in trading contexts and the overall intent is clear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It clarifies 'amount' (base units of input token, USDC for buy, equity for sell) and 'venue_hint' (advisory). However, it leaves 'symbol', 'caller_id', and 'slippage_bps' unexplained, and 'side' is only implicitly connected to amount. The most critical parameters are covered, but several remain ambiguous.

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 clearly states a specific action: providing a read-only quote for a tokenized-equity trade, explicitly noting no execution. It distinguishes itself from related tools like trade_equity and jupiter_swap by emphasizing the read-only nature and the trade context.

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 provides key usage context: it clarifies the amount interpretation by side and notes that venue_hint is advisory, not required, with a pointer to trade_equity for execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other quote-related tools (e.g., get_quotes) or provide exclusions.

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