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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid nature ($0.01 USDC), the indicative (non-binding) nature, the provider configuration requirement, and explicitly states 'Read-only: never signs, submits, or executes.' This is strong behavioral coverage, though it omits details like quote expiration or failure behavior, which are secondary for a quote tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the cost and purpose, then conditions, then read-only guarantee. Every sentence adds new information with no redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 8 parameters and an output schema that exists, the description covers the core behavior, prerequisites, and return type ('estimated output and quote source'). It does not explicitly explain all parameters or failure cases, but the output schema and standard trading knowledge fill some gaps. It is adequate for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of asset addresses and decimals ('Requires token addresses and decimals for custom assets') and the venues (Jupiter/0x) in relation to chain and venues parameters. However, it does not elaborate on amount, max_slippage_bps, or the specific format of to_asset/from_asset beyond custom assets, leaving those parameters under-explained.

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 verb ('Gets'), a resource ('indicative swap quote'), and the context ('before a trade'). It also names the supported venues (Jupiter, 0x) and chains, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from generic quote 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?

The description provides usage context ('before a trade') and a prerequisite ('Requires token addresses and decimals for custom assets'), but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. The sibling get_live_quote may serve a similar purpose, but no differentiation is offered, leaving some ambiguity.

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