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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool returns only an estimated output and does not execute the swap, instead directing the user to the Swop app. This is meaningful disclosure for a quote tool.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide the essential EVM/Solana routing guidance and unit clarification. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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 still tells the agent what to expect ('returns the estimated output') and that the user is directed to the app to complete the swap. Given the moderate complexity of dual-chain support and the fully documented parameters, this is sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation. It could have added quote shape details, but they are not essential here.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds value by mapping parameters to the two chain modes: 'pass chain plus token ADDRESSES' for EVM and 'omit chain and pass token MINTS' for Solana, and by clarifying that amounts use base units. This operational framing goes beyond the individual parameter 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 states a specific action ('Get a swap quote') on a specific resource ('for the linked user') and immediately distinguishes the EVM and Solana variants by provider (LiFi vs Jupiter). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_orderbook, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 gives clear, operational usage context: when to use EVM vs Solana, what to pass in each case, and that the tool is read-only and directs the user to complete the swap elsewhere. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the conditional guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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