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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: page size of 10 per order type, the failure contract (fails and is not charged if Jupiter doesn't answer), and the per-call price of $0.001 USDC. Cost and failure semantics are exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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 the resource and its contents in one dense sentence, then closes with a single compact sentence covering read-only status, pagination, failure behavior and price. No filler; each clause carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values — and it does so field-by-field for both order types, plus pagination, cost and failure behavior. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response without further information.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining the page size ("10 of each per page") and by spelling out what the `type` enum values actually correspond to (limit = Jupiter Trigger, recurring = Jupiter Recurring) in terms of returned fields. That adds meaning beyond the bare enum labels.

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 resource (a Solana wallet's open Jupiter orders) and enumerates exactly what is returned for each of the two order families — limit/Trigger orders (amount, limit price, filled, expiry) and Recurring DCA orders (deposit, per-cycle amount, interval, cycles done/left, output received). No sibling tool in the list fetches open Jupiter orders, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

"Read-only: places no order and changes none" effectively tells the agent this is for inspecting existing orders rather than creating or cancelling them, which is an implicit when-not. It gives no explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., wallet_profile or wallet_balance for other wallet views), so guidance is clear but not fully routing-grade.

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