usdc_convert_native

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially value-destroying operation. The description adds the useful non-obvious detail that a per-chain gas reserve is retained, but says nothing about irreversibility, the accountRef auth requirement, or slippage given minUsdcOutRaw. With the safety profile covered by annotations, this earns a moderate score.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and the gas-reserve behavior are front-loaded, and the quote-tool pointer follows. Nothing needs trimming.

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 destructive conversion tool with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety signal and the schema fully covers the parameters. The description adds the gas-reserve behavior and the quote prerequisite. The only gap is the absence of any mention of irreversibility or auth via accountRef, which is minor given annotation coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters, including chainId constraints and the raw-integer unit convention, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or unit clarification beyond what the schema provides, so the 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: 'Convert the chain's native gas token to USDC,' plus a distinctive behavior (per-chain gas reserve). An agent can tell what it does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling usdc_buy_with_native, which superficially sounds related.

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?

'Get amounts from usdc_get_convert_quote' is a genuine prerequisite pointer telling the agent which sibling to call first, which is valuable. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like usdc_buy_with_native or usdc_buy, so the when-to-use dimension is only implied.

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