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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the exact sub-checks performed (contract IDENTITY with same-ticker/different-contract caveat, withdraw/deposit door check per chain, canonicalization, strict unknown-support skip) and the return shape (viable, reason(s), per-chain doors/verdicts, chosen route chain). It omits side-effect/auth/latency statements, but as a read-only gate those are low-stakes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verdict question, then supporting detail. Dense and telegraphic rather than padded, though the long parenthetical contract-identity explanation and inline Korean term add friction without adding decision value.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description nonetheless enumerates return fields and the failure semantics ('strict unknown-support skip', reason(s)), which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it. It does not define possible reason values or door-check states, a minor remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds directional semantics the schema only partly conveys by clarifying buy_ex is the withdraw side and sell_ex is the deposit side, and restating the required set. That mapping meaningfully informs how to populate the params.

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 verdict question ('is BUY(buy_ex) → on-chain transfer → SELL(sell_ex) actually executable for this token?') plus the resource, and explicitly positions itself as the cross-venue identity+mobility check. An agent can distinguish it from get_price, get_token_intel, and get_unanimous without opening any 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?

'THE primary identity+mobility check before any cross-venue trade' gives clear when-to-use context and a sequencing prerequisite. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating when this check is unnecessary (e.g., single-venue flows), so it is not a full 5.

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