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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds only the unit clarification ('in the asset you send') and does not disclose error behavior, route validity requirements, or return structure beyond what the annotation provides.

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 a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter lookup tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with an explicit verb such as 'Returns'.

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 read-only tool with two documented parameters, the core purpose is covered. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the return shape, such as whether minimum and maximum are separate fields or how precision/units are represented, leaving a meaningful 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 the schema already defines both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the returned limits are denominated in the asset being sent, which is not explicit in the parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the resource as the minimum and maximum amount for a route and specifies the denomination as the asset you send. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as get_quote or list_routes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_limits versus get_quote, list_routes, or create_swap. It also omits any prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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