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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the transaction is unsigned and must be signed by the wallet, and Route execution avoids a Borro contract and Borro fee.

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 sentence and front-loads the core action, but it is syntactically tangled with nested clauses. The trailing phrase 'for the flows that need them' is vague and does not earn its place.

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 transaction-preparation tool with no output schema, the description communicates the key idea that it returns an unsigned transaction and explains the routing fallback. It does not describe the response shape or clarify what the vague final clause means, leaving some gaps.

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 documents all four parameters. The description does not add format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 identifies a specific action and resource: an unsigned transaction swapping the wallet's ETH for USDG or a stock. It also distinguishes between Uniswap and Route execution paths, but the phrasing is tangled and does not clearly differentiate this tool from sibling buy/prepare tools.

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?

It gives a condition for choosing Route over Uniswap ('when Route guarantees more'), which is useful. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as buy_cover, buy_option, or other preparation tools, leaving selection largely implied by the name.

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