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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what the response includes: current stage, actual deposit and payout amounts, transaction hashes, and a plain-language explanation of the stage and next steps. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the key return contents; the second sentence gives the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place.

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 status-lookup tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, a rich output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description supplies the missing context: what the tool reports, when to use it, and how it fits in the swap workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes id as 'Order id returned by create_swap' and sub_id as 'Sub order id, for an order the provider split in two.' The description mentions 'by id' but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Follow an existing order by id' — this is clearly a status-check operation, not a creation or quote operation. It lists concrete outputs (deposit/payout amounts, transaction hashes, stage explanation) that make its purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like create_swap, quote_swap, and swap_link.

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 clear usage context: 'Use it after create_swap, and again whenever the user asks where their swap is.' This tells the agent the temporal trigger and the user-intent trigger. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage guidance is specific enough for correct selection.

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