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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates this generates a quote (not an execution), but it does not explicitly state that no transaction is executed, nor does it disclose error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The outputs listed are useful, but the mutation/read-only nature is implicit rather than explicit.

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 two sentences: the first defines the purpose and outputs, the second gives a prerequisite. It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lists the key return elements (route, amount, calldata, gas) and a prerequisite. Missing are notes on how the calldata should be used, optional parameter implications, or possible failure modes, but the core context is sufficient for initial invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the schema handles the parameter semantics. The description adds minimal extra value beyond referencing chain/token resolution, which is already implied by the parameter names and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool obtains a cross-chain quote with specific outputs: best route, output amount, calldata, and gas. This is a specific verb+resource with concrete deliverables, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chains and get_tokens.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call get_chains and get_tokens first to resolve chain IDs and token addresses, providing clear sequential context. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is actionable and relevant.

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