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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description goes further by naming the data source (Jupiter, all known pools), enumerating the returned fields, and disclosing the failure mode ('routable: false + error if the size can't be routed at all'). It also clarifies units and directionality of outputAmount/effectivePrice, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Single dense paragraph that leads with the core mechanism, then directions, then trigger examples, then returns — a logical front-loaded order with no filler sentences. It is on the long side, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics — and it does, listing side, outputAmount, priceImpactPct, effectivePrice, marketPriceUsd, liquidityUsd, and routable with their direction-dependent meanings. Combined with full schema coverage, nothing material is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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% with enums documented for side and outputAsset, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces direction semantics ('sell (default)' vs 'buy spends USDC or SOL') and shows a worked amount example, but adds little beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('live price-impact quote for a Solana token swap') and qualifies the mechanism ('routed through Jupiter ... not a single-pool estimate'), which separates it from single-venue siblings like run_orderbook_impact. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('how much slippage will I eat swapping X tokens?', 'what do I get buying this token with 500 SOL?') and explains the two directions plus defaults, which is strong usage context. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer a different sibling (e.g. run_pre_trade_check or run_token_risk_check) over this quote.

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