Quant Swarm Audit — Deterministic Quote & Approval Token

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the pricing is deterministic (seeded bootstrap implied by the schema) and the returned approval_token is 'input-bound', which tells an agent that changing inputs invalidates the token — a behaviorally important detail not present in the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the return values are grouped in one clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so the tool is not obliged to spell out return values, and it does so only in summary. For a 14-parameter tool with fully documented schema, what remains unsaid — which of preflight_id versus the direct path/rows inputs to supply — is covered by the parameter descriptions themselves.

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 14 parameters are documented in the schema itself, including mode, preflight_id, and the *_path/*_rows pairs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Prices a validated preflight manifest before execution') and enumerates the four things it produces: execution plan, runtime estimate, credit/GBP cost, and approval_token. That separates it from audit.run (which presumably executes) and audit.preflight (which validates), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'before execution' and the precondition 'validated preflight manifest' imply the point in the workflow where this tool belongs, but the description never states when NOT to use it or names audit.run / audit.preflight as the alternatives. The routing is inferable from the workflow framing rather than stated.

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