cpu_quote_transport

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states 'Read-only on-chain view with no side effects,' details the return values including fee/discount semantics, and explicitly mentions validation behavior and rejection reasons for invalid routes. No annotation contradictions.

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?

The description is structured to front-load the primary action ('Preview... without committing'), then efficiently details outputs, side effects, validation, and usage context. Every sentence contributes unique information, and no redundant or filler content is present.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return values, edge cases (invalid route), and references to sibling tools (cpu_next_hops, cpu_transport, get_game_config). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in context.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the concept of a waypoint chain, hop radius constraints, the relationship between fee and discount, and how parameters map to on-map resources. This goes well beyond the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview a transport route... without committing' and enumerates the specific outputs (fee, discount, distance, timestamp). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a pre-commit validation step before cpu_transport, alongside cpu_next_hops for scouting.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Scout waypoints with cpu_next_hops; use this before cpu_transport.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool relative to alternatives, and the validation/error-surfacing behavior clarifies when it is useful.

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