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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: quotes are indicative, expire quickly, and the returned memo and inbound address must not be reused after expiry. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes necessary operational detail: asset format, amount units, and quote expiry behavior.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description reveals the key returned elements (memo and inbound address) and their expiration constraint, which is essential for correct use. A fuller enumeration of the quote response fields would be helpful, but the annotations and parameter schema cover the rest adequately.

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 adds value by explaining CHAIN.SYMBOL notation globally and giving a concrete 1e8 base units example, reducing unit ambiguity beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a THORChain swap quote for an asset pair.' It also clarifies asset notation and units, making the tool's job unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like get_network_status and list_pools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a THORChain swap quote is needed. It also gives important timing guidance by warning that quotes expire quickly, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions—siblings are unrelated enough that this is not a major gap.

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