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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating possible statuses, which is useful for interpreting results, but it does not explain refresh behavior, eventual consistency, authentication needs, or what the returned object contains.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the key input, and the possible status outcomes. Every part earns its place, and the status enumeration is compact enough to be useful without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the input and lists possible status values, compensating partly for the missing output schema. It stops short of describing the response shape or polling semantics, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the schema already explains that swapId is returned by create_swap. The description restates that the lookup is by swapId but adds no format, validation, or usage detail beyond the structured field.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: checking the progress of a swap by swapId. It is easy to distinguish from create_swap, get_quote, list_assets, and validate_address by name, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scope boundaries.

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?

Usage is implied by 'check the progress' and the schema note that swapId comes from create_swap, so an agent can infer this is for polling an existing swap. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no advice on polling frequency or alternatives.

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