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

The description discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transactionRequest for the caller to sign and submit, and that no keys are held. It also explains what the return includes (estimated output, fees, bridge used, duration). This is transparent about not executing transactions, which is critical for an agent.

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 dense paragraph but is well-structured: core purpose first, then example, then return details, then accepted inputs. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and is not provided here, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input format, and behavioral output. It addresses the parameters indirectly and explains the transaction workflow, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The description supplements the already-complete schema with helpful examples: amount in smallest unit (e.g., 1000000 = 1 USDC at 6 decimals), chain ids/keys, and token symbols/addresses. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 function: it bridges/swaps any asset across any chain via LI.FI, returns the best route plus an unsigned transactionRequest. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying cross-chain functionality and the unsigned tx output.

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 context on when to use this tool (cross-chain swaps, bridging into ETH for gas) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It implies the use case but lacks explicit exclusions.

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