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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned data shape (legs, timelocks, addresses, tx hashes) and implies a read-only lookup. It says nothing about auth requirements, behavior for unknown/expired swap ids, or freshness of the state, which matter for a lifecycle-status 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?

A single front-loaded fragment with zero filler; the most useful content (what state is returned) comes first. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which is terse but efficient.

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 annotations and no output schema, the field list in the description does real work as a stand-in for return documentation. Still missing are permission/auth expectations and failure behavior for a nonexistent swap, which an agent needs before calling.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but 'one swap' combined with the tool name makes clear the id identifies a swap; type and uuid format come from the schema. No extra meaning (e.g., which id namespace, whether off-chain or on-chain id) is added.

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 specific resource (one swap) and enumerates exactly what the response covers: legs, timelocks, addresses, tx hashes. The scope word 'one' implicitly separates it from list_swaps, but no verb (fetch/get) and no explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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 says what the tool returns but never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling (list_swaps, get_rfq) to prefer. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is for polling a known swap id.

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