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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by flagging legacy status, the restricted corridor, and the wallet-auth/session prerequisite, which are not present in the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key scoping fact ('Legacy v1 original-corridor'), and no filler. Every clause contributes either scope or routing guidance.

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 simple read-only quote tool with strong annotations, the description provides the corridor, workflow restriction, and v2 routing alternative. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at the returned quote shape, but this is minor for a generic quote tool.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining amount_usd and destination_chain. It only indirectly hints at destination_chain via 'Base or Arbitrum ETH' and never clarifies the meaning or scope of amount_usd.

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 identifies the exact purpose: a legacy v1 quote for Solana SOL to Base or Arbitrum ETH. It also distinguishes itself from assetfare_v2_quote, so an agent can select the right sibling without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('only with the legacy wallet-auth/session workflow') and when not to ('prefer assetfare_v2_quote for new evaluations'). This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity about alternatives.

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