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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond this by specifying financial non-movement ('No money moves') and quote stability ('immutable'), which the annotations do not state. It does not disclose what happens on invalid inputs, whether quotes expire, or how the fee feeds into the subsequent fund/create step.

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?

A single 16-word sentence with the key action front-loaded. 'No money moves' earns its place by reinforcing safety, and 'before creating a task' adds the essential sequencing context. There is no filler.

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 quote tool, the description covers the core need: what is returned (per-slot fee and total) and when to call it (before creating). But with 14 params, 7% schema coverage, and no output schema, an agent is left to guess what inputs affect the quote and how to interpret/extend the result. Adequate for the primary purpose but thin against the tool's actual complexity.

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 only 7% (a single param, agent_key, is documented), so the description bears the burden of compensating for 14 mostly undocumented parameters. It provides zero parameter guidance: no hint that parameters mirror the create call, no indication of which fields (e.g., slots, reward_usdc, template) drive the quoted fee. This is a significant gap given the large, mostly undocumented param surface.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the exact immutable per-slot fee and total') and scopes it precisely with 'before creating a task.' It distinguishes this tool from the sibling speedbot_exchange_funded_task_create by positioning it as the pre-creation quote step, and 'No money moves' clarifies it is not the funding operation either.

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?

'Before creating a task' gives clear ordering context, telling the agent to call this prior to task creation to learn the fee. However, it does not explicitly name the alternatives (e.g., 'use speedbot_exchange_funded_task_create to actually create the task') or state exclusions, so it stops short of the explicit when/alternative guidance that earns a 5.

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