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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this ('reads Osmosis's own estimate and moves nothing') while adding genuine behavioral context: the volatility warning about the small pool and the explicit list of fee layers (taker fee, pool fee, price impact) that shape the result.

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 return contents, then the read-only note and the timing caveat. The middle clause is a dense list, but each element earns its place and none is 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 simple two-param read-only quote tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, output shape, and a practical timing caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the slippage→minOutput relationship ('a minOutput for a slippage you choose'). The description largely restates what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies with no meaningful added semantics.

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 (quote) and resource (AETH→OSMO swap) and names the exact pool and network (AETH/OSMO pool on Osmosis testnet). No sibling tool does quoting, so the agent can place it immediately.

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?

Gives clear timing context: 'quote just before you swap' because the pool is small and moves with every trade. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but there are no competing quote siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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