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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds value by explicitly stating 'only quotes; it never executes' and by flagging RAW token units as a critical behavioral detail. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the critical RAW-units caveat is prominent, and the non-execution caveat closes the description efficiently.

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 read-only quote tool with three fully documented required parameters, the description is largely complete: it gives venue, direction, amount units, and non-execution behavior. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the quote response shape or possible failure modes would strengthen it, but it remains sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes all three parameters adequately, including the RAW-unit requirement. The description reinforces the tokenIn → tokenOut direction and the decimals scaling caveat, but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('quoting'), a clear resource (swap of tokenIn → tokenOut), the venue (Epsilon on Robinhood Chain, id 4663), and explicitly notes it never executes. This clearly separates it from execution-focused siblings and leaves no ambiguity about what the 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 makes clear this is for obtaining a quote before execution and explicitly rules out execution, but it does not name alternatives like get_route or order_preflight or explain when an agent should prefer those instead. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly compared with siblings.

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