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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that only an UNSIGNED base64 tx is returned, that the fee is charged past a daily free tier via payment_header, that the destination LST is authenticity-verified first, that allow_unverified swaps are at user risk, and that the signed phase broadcasts and on-chains confirmations happen later. This is rich side-effect disclosure.

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 structured into clear sections: core swap semantics, idempotency behavior, and two-phase execution. It is fairly long but each paragraph earns its place given the 11 parameters. Some repetition, like multiple references to liquid_stake, could be tightened slightly.

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 a highly complex two-phase swap and an output schema present, the description covers most needed context: output shape, fee behavior, idempotency, verification, and execution semantics. The remaining gaps are optional parameters and the heavy reliance on a sibling tool for the two-phase protocol details.

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?

Because the schema has 0% description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for from_lst/to_lst as mints, amount in base units, idempotency_key as an optional UUID, allow_unverified risk, and the signed_transaction/verify flow. It does not explain wallet_address, caller_id, or pay_in_crank, so it is not fully complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Swap between two LSTs via the Sanctum router (non-custodial).' It clearly distinguishes this from generic swap tools like jupiter_swap and from staking/unstaking tools by specifying the asset class and protocol.

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 gives strong operational guidance: when idempotency_key should be reused, when allow_unverified=true is needed, and how the two-phase signed_transaction/verify flow works. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over unrelated alternatives like jupiter_swap or liquid_stake, so the agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name and first sentence.

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