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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds ordering behavior (most liquid first), venue semantics, and the meaning of each returned field, including that prices are per unit in QU — useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage, then return shape in three tight sentences with no filler. The return-shape sentence is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 compensates by spelling out the return structure and field meanings, and annotations cover safety. Missing only minor details like pagination or default-limit behavior, which the schema partially covers.

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 the schema already documents limit, query, and category. The description only implies the symbol-search behavior of 'query' and category meanings ('contract' shares vs 'token') already enumerated in the schema, adding little beyond that baseline.

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 specific verbs (lists/searches) and the exact resource (assets trading on QX and/or QSwap), and clarifies it operates across two venues. An agent can distinguish this inventory/search tool from siblings like qmax_get_quote or qmax_get_order_book without opening schemas.

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?

'Use this first to find the right asset symbol' gives explicit workflow positioning before the quote/trade tools. It also explains a downstream condition (assets on both venues can be split for a better price), though it doesn't name a specific sibling to use afterward.

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