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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an estimation step, explains what the cost represents (winding down old positions and opening new ones), and specifies the return unit: estimated friction in bps of fund AUM. It does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, but the 'estimate' framing and the 'before calling swap_bot_in_fund' context make this adequately clear.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence summary, a usage directive, an Args list, and a return explanation. No extra fluff or repetition of schema types is included, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with four simple and required parameters, the description covers its main purpose, when to use it, what the result means, and the return unit. Minor gaps remain, such as not explaining where to find valid new_bot_domain values or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the fund must be active), but the core invocation context is sufficiently clear.

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 Args section is essential. It adds meaning for three of the four parameters: old_bot_id is 'the bot being considered for removal', new_bot_id is 'the replacement bot', and new_bot_domain is 'the replacement bot's doman'. Only fund_id ('The fund's ID') merely restates the schema title, but the other parameters are meaningfully clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the friction cost (in bps) of swapping a bot in a fund.' It clearly distinguishes this estimation tool from the actual mutation tool, swap_bot_in_fund, by naming the operation and its purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before calling swap_bot_in_fund' and explains why it should be used: to understand the cost of winding down the old bot's positions and opening new ones. This is a clear when-to-use directive tied to a specific sibling tool.

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