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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states what the tool returns (a guide) and enumerates the topics covered (configuration, operational flows, transaction details, approval rules). It does not claim any side effects or mutations, and the 'call first' instruction implies a safe, non-destructive operation. Lacks explicit mention of read-only or lack of side effects, but that is likely obvious for a guide tool.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence gives the purpose immediately, and the second lists high-value content areas without unnecessary filler. Front-loaded with 'Call this FIRST,' which is the most critical information.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It clearly explains what the guide covers and instructs on when to call it. It even provides a mini-table of contents (configuration, poolId usage, operational flows, transaction execution, approval rules) which leaves no ambiguity about what the agent will learn.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters).

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 clearly states the tool returns the complete setup and usage guide for SwapWizard, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by declaring itself the introductory/guide tool, unlike the specific action tools (swap, zap, etc.).

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 instructs 'Call this FIRST before using any other tool,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. This distinguishes it from alternatives and establishes it as the prerequisite step, which is exactly the kind of usage direction needed.

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