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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact return fields and the verdict enum, and mentions that the round-trip cost is 'calibrated against measured live execution overhead', giving insight into methodology without contradicting annotations.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a list of return values. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. The return list is slightly long but serves a clear function given the absence of an output schema.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating all return components and possible verdicts. It also provides some context on calibration. It does not mention potential errors outside the verdict list, but the verdicts cover no-pool and unknown cases, making it reasonably complete for a read-only estimator.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema: it references 'a given size' for size_sol but does not describe format or default behavior, which the schema already covers. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 estimates trade execution cost in a Solana token's main liquidity pool, listing specific outputs (slippage, round-trip cost, recommended max size, liquidity, verdict). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on token safety, wallet forensics, and wallet trust.

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 implies usage (when you need to estimate trade cost) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but there is no direct guidance on selection or prerequisites.

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