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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the side effect is order tracking with status and webhooks, and it explicitly reassures that nothing is signed or sent. It still doesn't describe error modes (e.g. expired quote rejection) or latency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its purpose, followed by timing/format and the non-mutating clarification. No filler or repetition.

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?

Only two required parameters, no output schema needed, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, timing, required input form, idempotency, and post-call effect (order tracking, status, webhooks) — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both txHash format and quoteId origin/expiry. The description's mention of 'EVM tx hash (0x + 64 hex) or Solana signature' largely repeats the txHash schema text and adds no new syntax or constraints, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Tell LayerHop that the user's wallet broadcast the transaction for a quoteId'. The stated consequence ('so the order is tracked (status, webhooks)') and the disclaimer 'Does not sign or send anything' separate it cleanly from siblings like build_transaction and simulate_transaction.

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?

Clear timing guidance: 'Call this once after broadcasting, with the EVM tx hash ... or Solana signature', and the 'once' instruction plus idempotency prevents duplicate reporting. It does not name a specific alternative for the other direction (e.g. pointing to get_order_status for checking progress), so no explicit exclusions.

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