Quote a swap into gas without gas

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the quote is free, valid for 2 minutes, nothing moves on chain until the wallet signs, output always returns to the same wallet, and the swap reverts if the minimum output is not met. That is exactly the safety and lifecycle context an agent needs before presenting a quote, and it does not conflict with readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with what is priced and for whom, then constraints, then return shape and the approval step. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (scope, sibling routing, chain exclusion, expiry, return payload, revert condition, approval) 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 5-required-parameter quoting tool with no output schema, the description still discloses the return shape ({ summary, transfer } with transfer id, fees, expected and minimum output) and the signing-approval step. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, with per-parameter examples and cross-references to gasrescue_info, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the tokenOut concept (gas coin vs another stablecoin) and adds no format, default, or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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 (quote) and resource (swap of a stablecoin into the chain's gas coin or another stablecoin) plus the concrete scenario (wallet with no gas paying its own fees). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling quote_send, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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 both when-to-use and when-not-to-use: use this when the result should return to the same wallet, use quote_send to pay someone else, and it is not available on Tron. It also states the workflow prerequisite ('get approval before signing'), which is the key routing condition for this family of tools.

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