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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool costs $0.12 USDC and provides route and simulation evidence, implying a non-mutating pre-sign check. However, it does not explicitly state safety (read-only), authentication needs, or what happens on failure, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the cost is stated efficiently. It loses a point because brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail, but as a concise statement it is well-structured.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only offers a one-line purpose and a fee. It lacks essential context such as how the guard works, what evidence looks like, how to handle results, and when to invoke it. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently in a trade workflow.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of from, to, amount, wallet, intentId, or other fields beyond what the raw JSON Schema already shows. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource: a pre-sign trade guard that includes route and simulation evidence. It clearly indicates the tool performs a safety check before signing a trade, which is more specific than simply restating the name. However, it does not use a strong action verb or explicitly differentiate from siblings like preflight_transaction or check_base_swap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_safe_swap_quote or preflight_transaction. The description states what the tool is but gives no context about the appropriate workflow, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling would be preferable.

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