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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses that the loop is two separate transactions so the second leg can fill worse, that the result is a snapshot and not a guarantee, and that a found result may be billed 50 QU to the caller's key. These are exactly the execution-risk and cost facts an agent needs and that structured fields cannot carry.

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 core action and return value, then the caveats and the billing note. Each sentence carries distinct information, with only mild compression in the parenthetical billing clause.

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, the description still conveys the shape of the result (most profitable size or null) and the key limitations and cost. It stops short of describing what a successful result object contains, but for a single-value search return that is a minor gap.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema (including the asset lookup pointer to qmax_list_assets). The description adds no format, unit, or interaction guidance beyond that, so the 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?

Precise verb and resource: searches live and at full depth for a buy-one-market/sell-the-other loop net of every venue fee and returns the most profitable size or null. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like qmax_swap_quote and qmax_get_quote, which only price a single venue.

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 states a real precondition - only assets listed on both markets can produce a result - which implies when the tool applies, but it never names an alternative or says when not to call it (e.g., when you only need one venue's price). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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