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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include HTLC settlement state and that the endpoint is cursor-paginated, but it does not mention permissions, read-only safety, ordering, or what the response shape looks like.

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 short sentences with no wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Its terseness contributes to readability even though it leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits essential details about pagination behavior, the limit parameter, ordering, and what fields are returned for each swap.

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 needs to compensate for two undocumented parameters. 'Cursor-paginated' gives some meaning to cursor, but limit is not described at all, including whether it defaults or caps results.

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 identifies the resource as 'your swaps' and adds that it covers their HTLC settlement state, which is more specific than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling swap_status tool, but an agent can reasonably infer this is a listing endpoint for the caller's swaps.

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 implies usage by saying 'Your swaps,' but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus swap_status or other list tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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