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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world nature, so the description only needs to add context; it does by disclosing the returned field set and the key behavioral rule that any two *different* assets can be swapped (i.e., no pair whitelist, but same-asset pairing is excluded). It stops short of saying whether results are paginated or complete, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the swap constraint and optional filters. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 2-optional-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the pairing rule, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It lacks only a note on result size/pagination, a minor gap.

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% with examples for both optional filters, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates 'Optional query/network filters' without adding format or matching rules beyond the schema, 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 ('List assets TorrentSwap can swap') plus the exact fields returned (id, ticker, network, decimals) and a pointer to the sibling that consumes the id (get_quote). An agent can distinguish this from get_quote/create_swap without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the discovery step before get_quote ('with the id to use in get_quote') and notes that any two different assets can be swapped, which tells the agent it needn't search for a matching pair. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite call ordering, so not a 5.

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