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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool returns instructions rather than executing transactions ('ready to sign'), describes the ordered step flow, and mentions calldata. It could go further by explicitly stating it does not modify state or require signing, but 'ready to sign' provides strong implication.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the core return structure without fluff.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return values: an ordered set of transaction instructions with pre-built calldata. It names the flow steps and implies the optional ethAmount behavior indirectly. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool provides and how it fits among sibling builders.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both wallet and ethAmount. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the flow context, but because the schema is adequate, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns a complete, ordered set of transaction instructions for the looksmaxx flow, naming specific steps (swap → burn → tren fund → submit) and the key output (pre-built calldata ready to sign). This distinguishes it from sibling single-transaction builders like build_amm_swap_tx and build_execute_tx.

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 usage for obtaining the full looksmaxx plan rather than individual transactions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling builders or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only inferred from the 'full looksmaxx flow' phrasing.

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