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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it produces unsigned calls the caller must sign, and spells out a multi-step `APPROBATIONS` workflow ('sign the approvals, then ask again'). The one phrase is terse, but it discloses a non-obvious retry loop the annotations do not.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the first sentence is a long run-on with a dense, comma-chained route enumeration that is hard to parse. The trailing `APPROBATIONS` clause is cryptic and underspecified. Content mostly earns its place, but structure and density hurt readability.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape ('unsigned calls') and the sign-then-retry approval flow, while the schema fully covers parameters and annotations cover safety. It stops just short of explaining the structure of the returned calls or how `APPROBATIONS` surfaces, but it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the four parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description's '`amount` is in raw units of the token paid' duplicates the schema's own 'Raw integer units of the token paid' almost verbatim, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it returns unsigned swap calls routed by TokenizedBlock, and enumerates the supported route families (block-to-quote, block-to-block, block-to-tokenized-stock, ETH/USDC, OUSD). This is far more precise than a tautology. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like tblock_command or tblock_plan_birth.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants to prepare a swap. The OUSD note ('ETH <-> OUSD is refused, swap through USDC in two trades') is genuinely useful route-validity guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus the other tblock tools.

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