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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering safety, the description still adds substantial behavior: non-executing quote, gasless via Permit2, MEV-protected, solver network routing across Tycho + RFQ liquidity, and the crucial fact that the agent never touches keys. It also discloses auth and cost (X-ORKID-API-Key or $0.002 USDC/call via x402), which annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each subsequent sentence carries payment, auth, or hand-off information. It is dense and slightly clause-heavy, but nothing is gratuitous.

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 quote tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, auth, pricing, supported chains, and the key return field (swapUrl). It does not describe the quote contents themselves (rate, amounts, route), leaving the agent guessing about the response body beyond the link.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema — "chain 4663" and the tokenized-stocks meaning for robinhood — but it also omits polygon, which the schema lists, creating a mild mismatch.

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?

"Get a live, non-executing crypto token swap quote" names a specific verb and resource, and "Same-chain swaps on Base, Ethereum, ..." implicitly separates it from orkid_bridge_quote. Sibling tools are not named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Use when a user wants to swap tokens, trade crypto, or buy tokenized equities" gives a clear trigger condition, and the swapUrl hand-off tells the agent where execution happens. It stops short of naming when to prefer orkid_bridge_quote or orkid_swap_link instead.

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