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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 0.3% integrator fee on executed swaps, the 60+ chain coverage, and the $0.002 pay-per-call model with a 402 challenge on unpaid calls. It stops short of stating the critical behavior that this tool only returns calldata and does not broadcast the swap, which for a financial mutation-adjacent tool is a notable omission.

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 densely packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose before fees, chains, and pricing. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the pricing/auth sentence is compressed enough that the fee and payment mechanics take a second read.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, chain coverage, fee, and the rough return shape ('ready-to-sign transaction data'). It leaves gaps an agent needs to call correctly: response fields (amounts, route, gas, tx object), slippage default, and whether the returned calldata must be signed externally.

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 coverage is 100%, but every schema description is just 'required'/'optional', so the only added semantics come from the description's mention of Base plus 60 chains and cross-chain routing via LI.FI, which hints at how fromChain/toChain are used. Slippage format/default, amount units (raw vs decimal), and token identifier format (symbol vs address) remain unexplained.

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 and resource ('swap quotes with executable calldata') plus the mechanism (races LI.FI, KyberSwap, Velora) and output ('best net output with ready-to-sign transaction data'). No sibling tool in the list is a swap router, so the scope is unambiguous on its own.

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 'swap quotes ... ready-to-sign transaction data' and by the note that cross-chain goes via LI.FI, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisite list (e.g. funded wallet, approval state), and no guidance on what to do when no route is found.

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