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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by naming what the quote produces (expected output, expiry time, generated memo), which is valuable behavioral context given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the limit-order mechanic following as supporting context. No filler or redundancy.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews the return contents (quote, expiry, memo). It slightly undersells prerequisites (e.g., that a destination address is needed to produce an executable memo), but covers the essentials.

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 all ten parameters, including target_out's limit-price semantics, are documented in the schema. The description only aligns loosely with target_out ("target price") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 ("Get a limit order quote") and clarifies the scope, naming the artifacts returned (expected output, expiry, memo). It is clearly distinguishable from retrieval siblings, but it never names its closest alternative (quote_swap) to sharpen the boundary.

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 second sentence explains limit-order mechanics ("execute when the target price is reached"), which implies when this tool applies, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against quote_swap/prepare_swap. Usage is left to inference.

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