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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly stating the tool 'never signs, submits, authenticates, creates a session, or prepares an action' and that it returns a 'caller-approved unsigned-action handoff'. This substantially clarifies the tool's safety boundaries and output nature.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: action is front-loaded, route scope is concrete, fee caveat is actionable, and behavioral boundaries are clear. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and a complex sibling ecosystem, the description gives route examples, fee caveats, return-handoff semantics, and explicit non-behaviors. It does not detail the quote response structure, but it provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 must compensate. It provides route examples that map to from_chain/from_token/to_chain/to_token and mentions total token-path cost, but does not explicitly explain each parameter or the amount_usd field. Parameter names and enums are self-explanatory, giving partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AssetFare cross-chain bridge/swap quote') and scopes it to 'any of 76 routes' with concrete examples. It clearly differentiates itself from session, auth, prepare, and observe siblings by stating what the quote call does not do.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool: for obtaining a fresh route quote and judging by total cost and live availability rather than the 1bp fee alone. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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