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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds real value by defining the preflight boundary against get_route and disclosing the unit convention. It stops short of describing what a negative result looks like (rejection reason vs. boolean), and the unusual idempotentHint=false on a read-only check goes unexplained.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the routing constraint, then the unit caveat. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema preflight tool, the description covers purpose, timing, sibling boundary and units. The one remaining gap is the shape of the result — whether the agent should expect a pass/fail flag or a structured list of failure reasons — which matters when deciding how to act on the check.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the RAW-units note on amountIn. The description's 'Amounts are RAW token units' repeats rather than extends that, so 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 (check) and a precisely scoped resource (a resting order — limit, stop, DCA, trailing — for a pair and size) and enumerates exactly what is validated: oracle support, liquidity, minimum size. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_route, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 an explicit trigger ('Run this before signing any resting order') and names the alternative with its exclusion ('it does not price the trade — get_route does'). This is the when-to-use, when-not-to-use and alternative all in one sentence.

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