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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only analytical calculation and possibly discloses a tool price ('Price 0.02 USDC'), but the price fragment is ambiguous and payment behavior/side effects are not clarified.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a fragment ('Price 0.02 USDC') that is not self-explanatory and could be misleading.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this is too thin: no return format, no payment_signature guidance, no explanation of chain values, and no conditions or failure behavior.

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 covers base, quote, pool, and notional, but leaves chain and payment_signature undefined. The description adds only 'constant-product' and 'trade size' context; it does not explain payment_signature, chain semantics, or how the cost relates to payment.

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 purpose: computing pool depth, implied price, and constant-product slippage for a trade size. This differentiates it from siblings such as token_report or wallet_profile, though it lacks a verb and the trailing 'Price 0.02 USDC' is ambiguous.

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?

'for a trade size' implies use when evaluating a trade's slippage/risk, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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