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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter status lookup.

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?

The tool is simple, has only one parameter, and benefits from rich annotations, so the description is minimally sufficient for a basic status check. However, it does not specify what the return value looks like or how to obtain requestId, and it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented requestId parameter. It implies that requestId identifies the relay swap request to check, but it does not explain where the ID comes from or what format it takes, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('Relay cross-chain swap request'), so an agent can tell this is a status lookup. It is distinguishable from siblings like getRelaySwapQuote and getRelaySupportedCurrencies, though it could be clearer by explicitly saying 'status'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool or how it relates to getRelaySwapQuote or getRelaySupportedCurrencies. The name implies it should be called after creating a swap request, but the description does not state this or provide any exclusion criteria.

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