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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns user-facing warnings, memo labels, address formats, and token contract details, and it deliberately omits pair-specific amount limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and packs the output contents into a compact list. The exclusion of min/max amounts and pointer to quote_swap is placed at the end without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool is for, what it returns, and what it intentionally omits. An agent has enough context to select and call it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the single required parameter fully, including accepted canonical ids, legacy tickers, and page slugs. The description reinforces that the input is an asset identifier and ties it to swap-building context, but it does not need to add much beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning everything needed to build a swap for a single asset, and enumerates the specific fields returned (canonical id, ticker, decimals, memo requirement, address format, contract, warnings). It also explicitly states what is NOT included and points to quote_swap, making it distinguishable from list_assets and quote_swap.

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 gives strong routing guidance by stating that minimum and maximum amounts belong to the pair and should be fetched from quote_swap. It implies this tool is the place to get per-asset metadata when constructing a swap, though it does not explicitly compare against list_assets or validate_address.

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