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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add behavior — and it does: it discloses the dual basis (quoted vs modelled), that the gap between them is shown, and that null is returned rather than zero when an input is missing. The only gaps are what the 'public response envelope' concretely contains and any rate/latency expectations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the quoted/modelled basis rule, then the null-handling contract. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does reasonably: it names the two basis values, the modelling fallback, the gap output, and the null-instead-of-zero rule. It is slightly incomplete in that 'RYO's public response envelope' is left undefined and no field names for the returned ceilings/curve are given.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by tying parameters together semantically — size_usd drives the quote, max_slippage_pct defines the ceiling that the 'largest size' is derived from, and omitting size_usd changes the whole response shape. It stops short of naming parameters directly or explaining how participation_pct feeds the time-to-exit estimate.

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 leads with a specific, concrete statement of what is computed: the cost to exit a position at a given size and the largest size that clears a slippage ceiling. That is a clear verb-plus-resource framing that an agent can act on. No siblings exist to differentiate against, so the only thing keeping it from a top mark is that the tool name/title alone ('exit_liquidity') would be ambiguous without this text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling tools to route between, so context is only implied by the output description. It does clarify the internal decision rule (quoted venue quote when available, constant-product model otherwise) and that omitting size_usd yields ceilings and a cost curve, but that is parameter behavior rather than invocation guidance.

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