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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the semantics of blockers, warnings, unavailable, and proceed, including that proceed is not a guarantee. This goes far beyond what annotations typically provide and gives the agent critical context for decision-making.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, then detailed output semantics. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure logically progresses from what → when → how to interpret. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, not overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior and return semantics. It does so thoroughly, covering all important output markers and caveats. It also justifies when to use this tool over siblings, making it complete for the agent to safely invoke 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?

The schema has 7 parameters with only 14% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain most of them. It only indirectly references mandateId via 'mandate budget'. There is no explanation of fromChain, toChain, amount, toToken, fromToken, or toAddress. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer meaning from types and tool name.

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's purpose: a single combined check covering serviceability, routing competitiveness, cheaper alternatives, delivery basis, and mandate budget. It explicitly positions it as a go/no-go pre-execution check, distinguishing it from the multiple separate checks it replaces. The phrase 'ONE call' and the list of integrated concerns leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says to call this before executing rather than making five separate checks, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains how to interpret the output (blockers vs warnings, unavailable, proceed), and implies that other tools may be used for individual checks. This is strong usage guidance with actionable direction.

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