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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses that the check is a simulation ('nothing spent'), details the return values (sell success, cost, depth, flags), and states rate limits ('ten a minute'). This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a read-only check tool.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then method, output, and constraints. Every sentence contributes necessary context, though it is slightly verbose. It earns a 4.

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 explains what the tool returns, the method used, and rate limits, making it sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a free single-token check with no output schema, this is reasonably complete. A 4 reflects minor missing edge-case details.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents the input formats. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond restating the token/pool ID format and test size. 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 states a specific verb (check exit) and resource (token/pool on Arc), and clearly explains the simulated round-trip check. It distinguishes itself from generic exit_check by specifying 'on Arc' and from arc_exit_check_bulk by implying single-token checks. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clarifies the input scope (token address or v4 pool id on Arc) and mentions rate limits, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like arc_exit_check_bulk for batch checks or exit_check for other chains. Usage context is clear but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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