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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that 'expected_out is NET of the 5 bps routing fee', reveals optional sender fields (router_fee_*, hog_discount_pct), explains max_legs caps and '404 if nothing fits', and limits to 'forward (amount) quotes only'. This gives the agent a rich understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 dense but every sentence contributes information. It front-loads the main purpose and uses compact phrasing (e.g., 'Base units (µ); asset 0 = ALGO'). Some sentences are long and cram multiple points, but overall it is efficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, fees, discounts, error cases, and parameter semantics for a complex quote tool. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed. The only notable omission is api_key, and the meaning of 'forward (amount) quotes only' is slightly ambiguous, but overall the context is robust.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for most parameters: amount vs amount_out semantics, base units and asset 0 = ALGO, sender's effect on fees/discounts, and max_legs behavior. However, it does not explain api_key, leaving a gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 'HOGSWAP swap quote across every Algorand DEX', clearly stating the verb+resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'quote_id for build_swap', indicating this is the quoting step before building a swap.

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?

Explicitly states when to use amount vs amount_out ('Give amount (exact input) OR amount_out (exact output)'), and explains the effect of passing sender for HOG discounts. It also describes max_legs trade-offs and error behavior. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this tool vs alternatives, though the build_swap reference implies the workflow.

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