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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the simulation is non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it simulates through real routers, so results reflect actual swap behavior, and clarifies the meaning of 'unknown' (not a pass). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent avoid misinterpreting results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a compact paragraph that leads with the core question, explains the simulation method, and lists the output fields. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly tighter by separating the output list. Overall, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 covers the purpose, method, output structure, and interpretation of results (including the 'unknown' verdict). It explains the simulation's realism and the warning about not treating 'unknown' as a pass. No output schema exists, so the field list is helpful. It is complete for an agent to decide when to call and how to interpret the result.

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?

The single parameter (address) is fully documented in the schema with a regex pattern and description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage, the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if a token can be bought and sold and the round-trip cost. It specifies the resource (token on Robinhood Chain) and the method (simulation via same routers as a wallet). It distinguishes itself from siblings by its explicit focus on pre-purchase validation rather than execution or other analytics.

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 implies usage as a pre-buy check: 'Check a token before buying' and warns 'It is not a pass: do not buy on it.' It gives context on how to interpret the verdict, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it. Siblings like prepare_buy or simulate_transaction are not referenced, so a clear routing guideline is missing.

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