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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool returns a quote envelope, quotes expire after 180 seconds, and expiresAt is in unix milliseconds — critical for an agent that must act before expiry. It could still mention whether the quote is bound to slippage, but the expiry semantics are the important addition.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and direction semantics, then the return/expiry contract, then the amount format. No filler and nothing buried at the end that an agent needs first.

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 seven-parameter, five-required quoting tool with no output schema, the definition covers the return envelope, expiry timing, direction semantics, the leverage dependency, and amount encoding. It omits guidance on slippage defaults and on sequencing with build_adjust, which keeps it short of complete.

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 coverage is 86 percent, so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it. The schema lists leverage as optional and never encodes the conditional requirement that 'push' needs leverage; the description supplies exactly that rule. It also restates that amounts are base-unit integer strings, reinforcing the format beyond the pattern in the schema.

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 pairs the specific verb "Quote" with a concrete resource: adjusting collateral, split into 'push' (add) and 'pull' (withdraw). The sibling list contains build_adjust and simulate, which are the natural confusions, and the description never explicitly says it only returns a quote rather than executing one, so differentiation is implied by the name rather than stated.

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 gives a real usage condition by tying 'push' to a leverage requirement, which tells the agent when the extra parameter is mandatory. However, it never states when to pick this over build_adjust or simulate, nor does it say a quote must precede a build, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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