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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing that Axiom never holds funds or keys, that execution goes through LI.FI, that the Axiom fee is 15 bps embedded in the swap, that provider fees are separate, that supported chains are listed, and that the tool is in beta. It does not explicitly address cross-chain behavior via toChain, but the core non-custodial and fee behavior is unusually transparent.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by custody, fees, chains, execution provider, and beta status. There is mild redundancy between 'non-custodially' and 'Axiom never holds funds or keys,' but every sentence otherwise 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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong context: what is returned, custody model, fee structure, supported chains, execution provider, and stability status. It lacks explicit guidance on cross-chain routing via toChain and on how the max fee cap is enforced, but the schema covers parameter names and defaults.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful fee and chain context, but it does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema, such as how maxTotalFeeBps interacts with the embedded Axiom fee or how slippageBps is applied.

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: 'Route a token swap non-custodially.' It clearly states what the tool produces ('returns transactions for YOUR wallet to sign') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quote_paid_resource and analyze_crypto_swap by emphasizing swap execution and non-custodial signing.

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 when to use the tool: when the user needs an executable token swap route returned as signable transactions. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings such as analyze_crypto_swap, nor does it state when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.

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