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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds behavioral details about the result: network, send/receive capability, memo requirement, and coin page. It also adds service context about no-KYC/no-account, which is slightly tangential but not contradictory.

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 tool purpose and query examples are front-loaded, and the description is reasonably compact. However, the no-KYC/no-account/no-ID sentence is largely product marketing rather than invocation guidance, and 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 the low parameter count, full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what the results contain and that the id is meant for other tools, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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 query, side, and limit are already documented. The description adds helpful example queries and clarifies that query covers ticker/name/network, but it does not materially expand on the side or limit parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Find the coin ids HiddenSwap uses, by ticker, name or network'. It also explains the results feed 'other tools', clearly distinguishing this lookup tool from siblings like get_quote, get_pair_info, and get_order_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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs a HiddenSwap coin id to pass to other tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the id-passing framing implies the intended workflow and is sufficient for selection.

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