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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: AssetFare never signs or submits, the tool returns an unsigned event-account transaction that the caller must co-sign, and it is a one-shot operation. These details are non-obvious and valuable, and they do not contradict 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?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core action and then delivers the Solana-specific signing requirement in a structured way. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

The description covers the overall flow, approval guardrail, and Solana CCTP signing requirement well, especially given there is no output schema. However, it omits details about what the response contains and does not explain the semantic of the wallets map, leaving some ambiguity for a complex 8-parameter 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?

The description provides crucial guidance for event_signer_public, including generating a fresh ephemeral keypair, passing only the public key, and co-signing the returned transaction. However, with only 13% schema description coverage, other parameters like the wallets object and amount_usd rely on names and enums, which may leave meaning ambiguous for an agent.

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 performs a caller-approved one-shot POST /v2/prepare for a route the live quote reports available, which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates itself by noting 'Never auto-called', which distinguishes it from session/observe tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 provides clear usage context: use it after a live quote reports a route available and only with explicit caller approval. The 'Never auto-called' statement is also a strong exclusionary guideline. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the conditions for appropriate use are unambiguous.

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