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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: non-custodial operation, a 2% slippage bound, conditional approvals, the 1% pool fee, and that it returns transactions rather than executing the swap. It could be slightly more explicit about read-only vs state-changing nature, but the practical behavior is well covered.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that packs the action, venue, return values, fee, and custody model without filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough about the return values, fee structure, and custody model for an agent to call it correctly. It leaves minor edge cases (e.g., insufficient balance, liquidity failures) unstated but is otherwise complete.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters; the description adds emphasis ('from YOUR wallet', 'for APEX or USDC') but no new semantic detail such as the default for the optional 'to' parameter. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Sell TOMATO on Arc') and names the venue ('Uniswap v4 pool') and output assets (APEX or USDC). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like arc_trades or arc_allowance.

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 establishes the context for use (selling TOMATO from your own wallet and receiving a quote plus transactions) but does not state when to avoid it or which sibling to use for related tasks such as checking allowance or trade history. Clear context, no exclusions.

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