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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing what the result contains (expected liquidity increase, swap plan, simulation results), that eligibility is verified, the phase-one restriction on third reward tokens and why, and an enumerated list of failure modes. That is exactly the behavior an agent needs before committing to a compound flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and output contract, then constraints and failure modes in descending importance. Telegraphic phrasing like 'Phase one: rejects third reward tokens (no verifiable swap path)' carries information in few words; no filler sentences.

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 compensates by summarizing the three return components and the failure surface, which is enough to call it safely. It stops short of specifying units or whether the quote is a snapshot of current pool state, a minor gap given the simulation-based nature of the tool.

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 wallet, positionMint, and sourceSignatures are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting that position eligibility is verified, which touches positionMint but does not explain sourceSignatures' merge semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a quote for compounding a position') and immediately unpacks the resource into concrete steps (harvest fees/rewards, swap to ratio, reinvest). The 'quote' framing plus 'Read-only' makes it distinguishable from the prepare_/submit_ compound siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the read-only preview step, with explicit failure preconditions (ineligible position, third reward token, insufficient harvested fees, swap plan failure). It never explicitly says 'call this before prepare_compound_transaction' or names an alternative, so selection guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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