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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately reveals what the tool returns (router address, calldata params, slippage-adjusted output) and the dual behavior depending on whether ethAmount is supplied. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only quote with no execution side effects, but the term 'quote' implies that; the return field disclosure adds useful context.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence provides distinct information: the swap context, the return fields, and the omit behavior. It is appropriately sized for a simple, single-parameter tool.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the primary return values (router address, calldata params, slippage-adjusted minimum). It also covers the optional parameter's behavior. For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is adequately complete for selection and invocation. It does not explain the calldata structure in depth, but that is beyond the description's necessary scope.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter ethAmount with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by clarifying that omitting ethAmount yields 'general swap info and contract addresses,' extending the schema's 'general info' phrase. This is a small but meaningful increment.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('swap quote'), and further distinguishes itself by specifying the exact context: buying $MEGACHAD with ETH on Kumbaya DEX. It also lists the expected return values (router address, calldata params, slippage-adjusted minimum output), making the purpose concrete and differentiating it from sibling tools like get_amm_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?

The description clearly explains the main use case (buying MEGACHAD with ETH) and provides instruction on the optional ethAmount parameter ('Omit ethAmount for general swap info and contract addresses'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_amm_quote or build_amm_swap_tx, so some usage boundaries are implied rather than stated.

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