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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a quote is an estimate and not a funding instruction, and it discloses the default behavior of the side parameter. No rate-limit or freshness caveats are given.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the parameter nuance, then the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a 7-parameter read tool with 86% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one behavior that matters most (estimate vs instruction) plus the side semantics. It stops short of describing what a quote returns (amounts, route, fees), which would help since no output schema exists.

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 86%, so most parameters are self-documenting, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining side semantics, which the schema leaves as a bare enum: "from" (default) quotes spending amount, "to" quotes receiving amount.

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+resource ("Estimate a swap") and immediately clarifies the estimation nature of the operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_swap and get_swap by stating it is not a funding instruction, though it never names those siblings.

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 tells the agent what the tool is for (estimating) and what it is not for (funding), which is a useful when/when-not split. It does not explicitly route to create_swap for execution or explain ordering within a quote-then-swap workflow, so it stops short of full guidance.

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