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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's value is in what it adds: the state vocabulary (pending, in flight, delivered, refund pending, refunded), that it reports what arrived and on which chain, the next-action guidance, and the edge case of transactions to contracts outside Cleave's published list. It also clarifies the tool only reports states and returns no transactions. The only gap is no mention of polling/refresh expectations beyond 'when to check again'.

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?

Purpose and state enumeration are front-loaded, and each sentence carries information (state list, inputs, edge case, when-to-use, negative capability). It is a dense single block with some clause-stacking, but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return content, and it does: states, what arrived and on which chain, and next action or when to re-check. Combined with the edge case for unlisted contracts and the explicit 'no transactions returned' note, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it largely does: it explains the chain + txHash pairing for a sent plan, requestId as optional additional context, and that a gas top-up is identified by requestId alone. It stops short of documenting format constraints (e.g. the 'g:<id>:0x…' requestId form or the supported chain set), which only the schema pattern/enum convey.

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?

States a specific verb (reports status) and resource (swap, bridge or gas top-up), and ties each case to the sibling that created it (cleave_plan_swap, cleave_get_gas). An agent can separate this from cleave_plan_swap and cleave_get_gas 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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: when the user asks whether such a transfer arrived, and before any re-send because re-sending an in-flight plan can pay twice. It also names the ordering/precondition relationship to the sibling tools, leaving little to inference.

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