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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the quote envelope, unix-ms expiresAt, 180-second expiry, and base-unit integer amount format.

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 short and front-loaded: it first states the operation, then the return/expiry behavior, then amount formatting. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 quote-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return envelope, expiry, and amount units. It could be more complete by explaining how the returned quote is consumed, such as whether it feeds into build_close.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including slippage and strategyId. The description adds only general amount-format context and does not clarify individual parameter meanings beyond 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 states a specific action and scope: generating a quote for closing a position in full. It distinguishes itself from sibling quote tools by specifying a full close rather than an adjustment, borrow, repay, or open.

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 phrase 'closing a position in full' implies when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly compare it with quote_adjust, build_close, or other siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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