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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a mutation (POST), requires approvals, returns a quote that expires, needs private key/wallet signer, handles price impact, and can error with 'swap amount too small'. It also explains the inclusion of intermediate swaps, price-range setup, and surplus return.

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with API mapping, core feature, CL support, execution flow, and warnings. Most sentences add value, though some repetition ('any input token' restated) could be trimmed. Still, it remains focused and useful.

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 complex tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, execution steps, error conditions, and warnings. It mentions priceImpact in the response but could elaborate on the full response structure. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds significant extra meaning: explains poolId must be verbatim from search result, tickLower/tickUpper usage for CL pools, deposits token address format (0x0000...0000 for native), and affiliateCode purpose. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool maps to POST /addliquidity/quote and builds a single-transaction zap to enter an LP position from any input token. It distinguishes from siblings like zap_out_of_lp_position and get_swap_quote by emphasizing that the deposit token does not have to be a pool underlying token and that it handles all intermediate swaps plus LP mint in one transaction.

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?

Provides extensive guidance on when to use (e.g., for entering LP positions, supporting both CL and classic pools), execution flow (approvals, fresh quotes, sending tx), and important constraints (poolId must be verbatim from search_liquidity_pools). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_swap_quote, but the context is very clear.

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