Preflight a swap

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, and the description honors that by framing this as an inspection that yields a verdict plus reasons rather than executing anything. It adds real substance beyond the annotations by listing the six risk categories checked; it stops short of saying whether the verdict is blocking or advisory.

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 sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is checked, the second states what comes back. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return structure need not be explained, and all three params are fully documented. The one remaining gap for a read-only preflight is the decision context — whether a failing verdict should halt the swap and how it relates to check_token — which leaves it just short of complete.

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%, including the buy/sell semantics of side and the meaning of amount, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description contributes only the scoping phrase 'this exact swap' and no additional parameter detail, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('swap_preflight for this exact swap') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: price impact, sandwich risk, transfer fees, hooks, mint/freeze authority. That enumeration distinguishes it from the generic sibling check_token, though the contrast is only implicit (no sibling is named).

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?

Usage is implied — a swap preflight obviously precedes a buy or sell — but the description never says 'call this before buy/sell' or when to prefer it over check_token. The agent must infer the ordering and the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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