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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it never sees or holds keys, never moves funds, and returns only quotes and UNSIGNED transactions. The disclaimers and safety posture materially extend beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the core quote-and-compare purpose in the first sentence, followed by return values, then safety/scope notes. It is efficient, though the trailing 'Education only, not financial advice' disclaimer is padding relative to the operational content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back (best route, expected output, price impact, fees) and covers custody/safety constraints. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any hint about rate limits or the unsigned-transaction handoff to build_swap_tx.

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 75% (from/amount/sender documented), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description restates the supported coin set and confirms returns are unsigned, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 fits.

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 (quote) and resource (spot swap) plus the exact venue comparison: DeepBook v3 direct/2-hop vs the Cetus aggregator, and enumerates the tradable set. It is clearly distinct from build_swap_tx by being a read-only quote, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Scope boundaries are given (spot only, no leverage, non-custodial), which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives like build_swap_tx or get_cetus_pool. An agent must infer that this is the pre-trade quoting step.

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