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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool composes non-custodial DEX swaps and custodial-at-venue bridges, returns ordered legs with custody and fees, and describes the output structure. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but as a planning tool, this is implied. It adds context about fee disclosure and custody per leg, which is valuable.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the tool, illustrating the output, and guiding execution. There is no fluff.

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 planning tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it defines inputs, explains the composition of legs, describes the return (ordered legs, total output), and provides execution instructions. An agent can correctly call this tool and understand how to use the results without additional documentation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the dual nature of `from`/`to` (instant id or DEX token) and providing an example of how to express a route. It also clarifies that `amount` is integer base units of `from`, which is already in schema but reinforced with the example. The description enriches the semantic understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose: planning the cheapest multi-hop route between any two assets, composing DEX swaps and instant-lane bridges. It includes an example that illustrates the concept and differentiates it from sibling tools like build_swap_transaction and create_instant_shift by emphasizing that this is a planning tool, not an execution tool.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent on how to use the results: 'Execute legs in order: DEX legs via build_swap_transaction, bridge legs via create_instant_shift.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (planning) and when to use alternatives (execution), providing clear routing guidance.

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