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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' and 'stays a free read' reinforce but also extend the annotations. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the fee discount logic tied to wallet_address, volume tier, and $CRANK staker discounts, which is beyond the annotation scope.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands on key parameters. It is detailed but not bloated; each sentence adds value, though it could be tightened (e.g., 'stays a free read either way' is slightly redundant but reinforces safety).

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return format is covered) and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage: amount unit, venue_hint advisory, and wallet_address fee behavior. It omits details on slippage_bps and pay_in_crank, but these are less critical and likely have defaults. Overall, a solidly complete description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains amount is in base units of input_token, venue_hint is advisory, and wallet_address enables discounted fee preview. It does not explain slippage_bps, pay_in_crank, or caller_id, but covers the most impactful parameters for agent use.

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 explicitly states 'Read-only Jupiter quote for a token pair (no execution)' — a specific verb (quote), resource (Jupiter token pair), and scope (read-only, no execution). It also references jupiter_swap as the execution counterpart, clearly differentiating the tool.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (for a quote, not execution) by contrasting with jupiter_swap. It also clarifies optional parameters like wallet_address for discounted fee preview and venue_hint as advisory. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative quote tools or state 'use this when you only need a quote', but the context is clear.

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