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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states that this is a quote rather than a swap, discloses the cost/payout calculation logic, and surfaces a dust warning. It doesn't discuss error behavior or edge cases, but the essential non-execution behavior is transparent.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, enumerates outputs without fluff, and ends with actionable usage guidance. It is slightly long, but the complexity of the tool justifies the detail.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs for selection and invocation: required input, calculation basis, expected verdict, and the recommended follow-up tool. It doesn't specify response shape or error conditions, but those are not critical for correct tool choice.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful context by tying size_usd and hold_days to the cost and payout calculations, but it doesn't provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states.

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's specific function: computing trade costs and expected payout for a StonkFun reward-coin position at a given size and hold period. It lists concrete outputs and explicitly says 'No swap,' distinguishing it from execution and from related analysis 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?

It gives explicit guidance: use before sizing any reward-coin position, then follow with trenches_check to time the entry. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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