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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns all three stablecoin options, ranks them by settlement efficiency, and returns a settleBody ready for POST to /settle. It also explains the EURC recommendation logic, which is useful for understanding outputs.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it does, a specific recommendation rule, and the output format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has only 3 well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavioral aspects: number of options, ranking logic, recommendation for EUR, and the generated settleBody. Comprehensive for its 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Settlement amount in source currency'). The description mostly restates the schema ('amount, source currency (from), and destination currency (to)') without adding new semantics or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Multi-stablecoin settlement routing' with specific verb 'returns' and resource 'all three stablecoin options... ranked by settlement efficiency'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compute.route and treasury.yield_route by focusing on stablecoin settlement and providing a concrete output (settleBody).

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying inputs (amount, source currency, destination currency) and the domain (stablecoin settlement). It provides a specific recommendation for EUR destinations, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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