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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Metadata only' and 'ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled', disclosing that the tool is non-mutating and returns only data. It does not describe the exact shape of the packet, but the key side-effect-free behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a critical qualifier ('Metadata only'). Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple handoff-packet tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient operational context: what it does, when to use it, and its non-mutating nature. It lacks return field details, but given the internal audience, that is an acceptable gap.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the 6 parameters. While parameter names and defaults in the schema are self-explanatory (e.g., chain, amount, to_token), the description provides no additional meaning, failing to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 returns a 'handoff packet' for guarded_swap_execute_dry_run before a Base swap, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling risk checkouts by describing this as a pre-swap packet, though jargon like 'Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create' is somewhat opaque.

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 specifies 'before a Base swap' as the usage context and notes that ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, implying the agent should use this to prepare, not execute. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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