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 exceeds expectations. It discloses the execution flow (approve, re-quote, send), the requirement for a private key or wallet signer, the priceImpact field requiring user confirmation, the 'swap amount too small' error case, and that quotes expire. It also notes that surplus is returned to the user. This is highly transparent behavior disclosure.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (EXECUTION FLOW, PRICE IMPACT, ZERO OUTPUT) and uses warning symbols. It front-loads the core purpose and API mapping. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, but it contains some redundancy (e.g., 'single-transaction' repeated) and could be slightly tighter.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers most essential context: supported pool types, execution prerequisites, potential errors, and safety warnings. However, it does not describe the full response structure (only mentions priceImpact and implies callData/value via instructions). This is a minor gap since the tool's output is central to its use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It emphasizes that poolId must come verbatim from search_liquidity_pools and must not be modified, which is a critical constraint not fully captured in the schema. It also elaborates on tickLower/tickUpper behavior and affiliateCode's on-chain payment logic. This adds clear value over the schema alone, though the description could have covered a few more edge cases (e.g., deposits schema semantics).

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 what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Builds a single-transaction zap to enter an LP position from ANY input token.' It also differentiates from the sibling tool zap_out_of_lp_position by using 'enter' vs 'exit', and describes the exact endpoint (POST /addliquidity/quote). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's 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 provides extensive usage context: it explains that the tool works with any input token, supports both CL and classic pools, and gives explicit instructions on when to provide tickLower/tickUpper (custom range) and when to omit them (default range). It also warns about quote expiry and the need for a fresh quote before transaction. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_swap_quote or list_user_lp_positions, so it falls short of a 5.

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