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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the MCP call is read-only until the wallet signs, details on-chain gas costs and the 0.5% HyperNatt fee, and notes that Li.Fi may add its own cut, instructing the user to read quote.estimate.feeCosts. It also recommends signing swap_actions_v1 in order, providing clear operational transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear 'USE WHEN:', 'RETURNS:', and 'Side effects:' labels. The opening sentence immediately establishes purpose, and every clause adds relevant information (fees, signing order). There is no wasted text.

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 a complex swap tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return values, fees, and side effects. It could elaborate slightly on what 'execution_readiness' means, but the provided instruction to sign swap_actions_v1 in order gives sufficient operational guidance. Overall, it is highly comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; it focuses on fees and execution flow. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states 'Cross-chain token swap powered by Li.Fi across 70+ chains', providing a specific verb and resource. It also lists concrete use cases (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing, rebalance), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_agent_manifest and get_liq_radar.

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 includes an explicit 'USE WHEN:' section with concrete scenarios (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing, rebalance). This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, and while it doesn't name alternative tools, the listed use cases are actionable and sufficient for decision-making.

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