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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the AMM type (constant-product), fee (0.3%), return values, and the unusual tokenA/tokenB behavior that makes standard routers fail. It doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only operation, but 'quote' implies no mutation, and no side effects are suggested.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, return values, the critical warning with alternative, and the omission usage. No redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently packed with necessary technical details.

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 quote tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (expected output, price impact, spot prices) and why it's needed (tokenA/tokenB incompatibility). It also covers the optional-parameter behavior, making the tool's behavior fully understood in context.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting both parameters switches to reserve inspection, which is not derivable from the schema alone. This added semantic nuance justifies a 4.

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?

Description opens with 'Quote a swap on the MegaChadLP MC/MG pair', a specific verb+resource. It lists return values (expected output, price impact, spot prices) and warns about the pair's non-standard tokenA/tokenB ordering, distinguishing it from generic quote tools like get_swap_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?

Explicitly says 'standard Uniswap V2 routers do not detect it — use this tool', naming an alternative and directing to use this tool. Also gives a concrete usage mode: 'Omit from + amount to just inspect reserves', clearly explaining when to use the optional parameters.

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