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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the settlement window, the three possible order states, and that aggregator attribution may be absent ('when known'). It does not say what is returned for an unknown or unsubmitted txHash, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the outcome-then-detail structure; nothing is wasted. The first sentence is dense with nested clauses, but each clause carries real information an agent needs.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing return values by listing order states and their payloads, which is the critical gap it needs to fill. The remaining hole is error/not-found behavior for a bad or unknown hash.

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 single parameter is documented with type, hex pattern, and length. The description adds no further meaning about txHash, 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?

Names a precise resource (a submitted swap transaction) and enumerates exactly what is returned: on-chain status plus per-DEX-order state (pending/complete/cancelled) with received amount, settling transaction, and app/aggregator. That return shape cleanly separates it from plan_swap, build_swap_transaction, and get_swap_quote without needing to name them.

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?

'Use it after a swap was submitted' gives the triggering condition, and 'orders normally settle within one to five minutes' tells the agent what latency to expect when polling. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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