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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'The nest holds no keys and sends nothing,' 'reads what the wallet holds, leaves out any approval the wallet has already given, rehearses the rest from your wallet in a simulation,' and sets the minimum acceptable amount. These explain the read-only, idempotent nature consistent 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 slightly long but each sentence adds value: purpose, safety, process, and usage options are all covered. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically.

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 implies the return (unsigned transactions) and explains key behaviors like simulation and slippage. It covers all parameter usage and edge cases (existing approvals, 'all' amount) sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters have descriptions. The description adds practical guidance for amount ('all' or plain number) and percent, clarifying the choice between them. This goes beyond schema to improve selection.

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: 'Writes a sell as unsigned transactions for your own wallet to sign.' It clearly distinguishes from prepare_buy and practice_sell by focusing on real sells and unsigned transactions. The phrase 'the way out' reinforces its purpose.

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 (when you want to sell) and clarifies that a sell is always written regardless of token checks, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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