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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics beyond those hints: it returns unsigned swaps, keeps gas-positive legs only, bundles the sweep fee onto one leg, and clarifies that approval/signing is left to the user (non-custodial).

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose, then describe the input, the returned plan, the fee behavior, custody model, and supported chains without redundancy. The chain list in prose is slightly redundant with the enum but useful as a network whitelist.

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?

The description is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool: required inputs, defaults, supported chains, and the plan's high-level shape are all present. With no output schema, it still stops short of specifying the exact plan structure, though it names legs and approvalTarget implicitly.

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 wallet, dust, chain, slippageBps, and targetToken. The description mostly restates defaults (USDC) and the dust-list shape in prose; the only additive context is that the caller must supply balances ('you know your own balances'). This modest addition does not push far above the full-coverage baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Consolidate many small leftover token balances (dust) into one token (default USDC) on an EVM chain.' It clearly differentiates this planning tool from execution/build siblings by emphasizing that it returns an unsigned swap plan, not a signed transaction.

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 gives a clear context for use: dust consolidation, user-supplied balances, and supported chains. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like build_swap_transaction, but its scope is specific enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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