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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds that the call is optional and offline, which is useful context an agent needs, but doesn't disclose return shape or rate/permission behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The critical 'optional, offline' qualifier leads, followed by behavior and the skip condition.

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?

Given annotations carry the safety profile and an output schema exists to explain the returned next question, the description supplies what's needed: that it validates partial input, is optional/offline, and when to skip it in favor of get_quote.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description lists which fields constitute a partial request, reinforcing which inputs are validated, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Checks a partial request') and names the inputs it examines (direction, amount/receiveAmount, to) plus its output (the next question). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_quote, though 'skip it when you have what get_quote needs' hints at the boundary.

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 clear when-to-use context ('checks a partial request', 'skip it when you have what get_quote needs'), notably 'optional, offline'. It names get_quote as the alternative and states the condition for skipping, but doesn't spell out the full when-not beyond that.

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