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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a paid call costing 0.020 USDC, it uses state-override simulation, and it computes exact slippage, gas, and MEV exposure. It stops short of explaining payment mechanics or whether amount_usd defaults to the three named tiers.

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load what the tool does and then state the cost. No wasted words, and the most important operational detail (price) is included.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the returned slippage/gas/MEV values. Annotations cover safety and openness. The remaining gap is the lack of sibling routing guidance and the ambiguity around amount_usd tiers versus arbitrary amounts, but the core context an agent needs is present.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds that simulations focus on $1k, $10k, and $50k orders, but it is ambiguous whether amount_usd is optional and defaults to those tiers or accepts arbitrary values as the schema implies.

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 verb and resource: executes state-override simulation of swap orders on Base Mainnet, with concrete outputs (slippage, gas overhead, MEV exposure). It is clearer than most sibling audit tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives like rugshield_pre_swap_scan.

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?

Usage is implied by the simulation framing: an agent can infer it should call this before executing a swap to estimate slippage and MEV. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs pre_swap_scan' guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions.

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