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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses per-leg custody (non-custodial vs custodial-at-venue), fee disclosure, ordered return shape, and execution order. This is rich behavioral information for a planning tool.

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?

Dense but well-structured: purpose and composition are front-loaded, the example clarifies the abstract parameter formats, and the final execution instruction earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 complex multi-hop planning tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return contents (ordered legs, custody, amounts, fees, total output) and next actions. It leaves little ambiguity about how to consume the result.

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 the description mostly restates the schema's parameter formats for from/to/amount. It does add a helpful cross-chain example mapping the parameters to a real route, but it does not add meaningfully new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Plan the cheapest MULTI-HOP route between ANY two assets' and decomposes it into DEX swaps and instant-lane bridges. The example and explicit leg types make it clearly distinguishable from single-hop siblings like get_swap_quote and create_instant_shift.

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?

Clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a multi-hop route is needed. It also gives explicit follow-up routing by stating DEX legs go through build_swap_transaction and bridge legs through create_instant_shift, but it does not explicitly contrast with single-hop planning alternatives such as get_swap_quote.

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