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

Annotations already flag non-idempotent, non-read-only, open-world behavior; the description adds real value by spelling out the retry hazard ('another call creates another order') and the duplicate-order consequence, plus the mutation is durable. It stops short of covering auth/permission needs or timeout handling details.

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?

Three short sentences, action and return information front-loaded, and the two safety caveats placed at the end where they read as warnings. No filler.

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 correctly covers the return values (deposit address and exact amount). Combined with the retry and confirmation guidance and fully documented parameters, an agent has what it needs, though prerequisites like quote retrieval are not addressed.

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% and each parameter carries a description (including the native-token and non-atomic-amount nuances), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes `amount` and `fromToken` by name without adding syntax or format guidance.

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 ('Create a durable order that spends `amount` of fromToken') and even summarizes the return ('deposit address and exact amount to send'), which separates it from get_quote and get_swap. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives two concrete operating rules: 'Confirm with the user first' and 'Never retry after a timeout or error.' That is well above implied usage, though it omits the natural prerequisite of obtaining a quote via get_quote before creating the order.

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