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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add domain behavior — which it does: non-custodial, the XMR intermediary that breaks the on-chain link, and the returned estimatedAmount/minAmount pair. It does not discuss quote expiry, slippage assumptions, or fees, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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-loaded with the routing model, then returns, then constraints, then the execution hand-off — an efficient ordering with no filler. The parenthetical is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 3-parameter read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the routing semantics, and the input constraints, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of noting quote validity or how amounts are denominated for the XMR hop, which would matter for a multi-hop quote.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by imposing a constraint the schema never states: neither from nor to may be xmr, and the two must differ. That is genuine added meaning rather than restatement.

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 (Estimate) and a specific resource (private swap routed through Monero), plus the concrete routing path coin -> XMR -> target coin. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling quote tools (swap_quote, sol_swap_quote, pump_token_quote) and from private_swap, which executes.

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?

Explicitly routes execution to private_swap and states the validation conditions (from/to must not be xmr and must differ). It does not say when a caller should prefer this privacy route over a normal quote sibling like swap_quote, so the exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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