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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the tool is noncustodial, requires a $0.01 USDC fee, and that the buyer signs and broadcasts the transaction. However, it does not explain what 'safety-checked' entails, failure modes, quote expiration, or other behavioral details beyond the basic cost and execution model.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds cost and custody details. Both clauses convey meaningful information without wasted words. It is conciseness, though not under-specification to the point of being unhelpful.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It leaves out how quotes are returned, error conditions, parameter details, and execution semantics beyond 'buyer signs and broadcasts.' The mention of a fee and noncustodial nature provides a little context, but major gaps remain for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. It doesn't explain the format of 'amount', the role of 'wallet', the meaning of 'executionMode', or how optional parameters like 'intentId' and 'referralCode' affect behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing a swap quote on Base with safety checks and noncustodial execution. It implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like check_base_swap and verify_swap_execution by its focus on quoting, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns a quote.'

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 implies use for obtaining a swap quote on Base, and mentions the $0.01 USDC cost and that the buyer signs and broadcasts, which hints at execution expectations. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to use get_safe_swap_quote instead of check_base_swap or verify_swap_execution.

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