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

The annotations already establish read-only behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned estimate fields, including fees, slippage, estimated time, and a memo. It does not explicitly say whether the quote expires or what permissions, if any, are required.

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 front-load the purpose and then give a concrete example and return-value summary. There is no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately names the expected return fields and makes clear this is a calculation rather than an execution tool. The main remaining gap is routing guidance versus similar quote or execution siblings.

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 all six parameters in detail. The description reinforces the core concept with an example, but adds no parameter-specific syntax or formatting beyond the schema.

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: calculating expected swap output for one asset into another, with a concrete example. It clearly separates quoting from executing, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as quote_limit or prepare_swap.

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 gives clear usage context with an example question, so an agent knows this tool is for estimation-style swap questions. It does not name when to use alternatives like quote_limit or prepare_swap instead.

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