estimate_fees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating this is a non-committal estimation tool (not execution) and describing the return format breakdown. However, it lacks details about potential limitations, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be important for a fee estimation tool.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core purpose, second describes the return format, third provides usage context. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 fee estimation tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the non-execution nature, return format breakdown, and usage scenarios. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return format ('breakdown of gas fees, relayer fees, and total cost impact').

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about what the tool does with those parameters (estimating fees for bridges/swaps). This meets the baseline for high 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 with specific verbs ('estimate fees for a bridge or swap') and distinguishes it from execution tools like 'execute_bridge' by emphasizing 'without committing to execution'. It explicitly identifies the resource (fees) and scope (bridge/swap operations).

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for comparing routes or showing users expected costs'), which implicitly differentiates it from execution tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools like 'get_bridge_quote' or 'get_swap_quote'.

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