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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only, informational lookup, which is useful, but it doesn't say what happens for an unsupported chain pair (error vs empty vs fallback recommendation), whether chain ids must be numeric strings, or how the notes are structured.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is stated first and the protocol-note detail trails it. Slightly dense phrasing ('with notes on protocols supported') but nothing wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this is close, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about the response shape (e.g. a recommended tool name plus rationale/notes) and about unsupported-pair behavior. The agent knows what the tool is for but not fully what it will get back.

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 both parameters (fromChainId, toChainId) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the from→to pairing concept without adding format guidance (e.g. numeric chain IDs like '1' vs '137'), which is the one thing the schema does not clarify. 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 and resource: it returns a routing recommendation (which swap/bridge tool to use) for a from→to chain pair, plus protocol notes. The wording inherently distinguishes it from the action siblings like preview_swap_quote, propose_swap, and propose_bridge, since it only advises which of those to use.

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?

Context is implied: call it with a source/destination chain pair before picking a swap or bridge path. But there is no explicit when-to-use instruction (e.g. 'call before preview_swap_quote or preview_bridge_quote'), no when-not, and no named alternatives, so the agent must infer the routing role from the phrase 'which swap/bridge tool to use'.

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