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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description stays consistent with that (quoting, no state change). It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the return is a quote envelope, expiresAt is in unix ms, quotes expire after 180 seconds, and all amounts are base-unit integer strings.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its outputs, then return envelope and expiry, then the unit convention. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 7-parameter, 5-required preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs, the expiry contract, and unit formats. The main remaining gap is not explaining how the quote relates to the build_open call that consumes it.

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%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, including the leverage and slippage semantics. The description only reinforces unit conventions ('amounts are base-unit integer strings') and says nothing about the undocumented collateralToken or borrowToken parameters beyond what the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb (quote) and resource (opening a leveraged position) and enumerates what the quote computes: expected collateral, debt, health factor and liquidation price. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling build_open, though 'Returns a quote envelope' implies a preview-only counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied by the name rather than stated; the description never says 'use this before build_open' or contrasts with quote_adjust/quote_repay. The 180-second expiry note is the only procedural guidance, hinting that the quote must be consumed promptly, which is useful but indirect.

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