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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts this by stressing it returns UNSIGNED tx bytes and never moves funds. It adds real behavioral context: simulated against mainnet, non-custodial (keys never seen/held), spot only, no leverage. A bit more on what the returned bytes are meant for would push it higher.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded ('Create and share...'), followed by return format and risk qualifiers. Mostly tight, though the trailing 'Education only, not financial advice' is boilerplate that slightly dilutes the focus.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description correctly explains the return (unsigned, simulated tx bytes) plus the non-custodial and spot-only constraints. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result, though nothing states whether sender must already have funds/setup.

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?

With one fully documented parameter (schema coverage 100%), the schema already carries the meaning of 'sender'. The description's 'owned by your address' loosely maps to it but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (create and share a DeepBook v3 BalanceManager), scopes ownership to your address, and ties it to its role (needed for limit orders). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like build_limit_order_tx, build_bm_deposit_tx, and build_swap_tx without opening any 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?

'needed for limit orders' gives a concrete precondition that tells an agent when this build step is required. It is clear context but offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives beyond the implicit prerequisite relationship.

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