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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the full set of possible statuses, the fact that settlement transactions are returned, and that the USDC balance only appears once settled. It does not say what happens before a deposit exists or whether FAILED/REFUNDED are final, which keeps it from a 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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return contents; the parenthetical sibling reference and status list each add distinct information. No filler or redundancy.

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 does the work of describing returns (statuses, settlement transactions, conditional USDC balance), which is appropriate for a one-parameter read tool. The remaining gaps are parameter meaning and end-of-lifecycle behavior for terminal statuses.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must explain deposit_address, and it never does — it only implies a swap is being looked up. An agent must infer that the deposit address is the lookup key rather than, say, a tx hash or swap ID, which is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieving where a swap stands) and enumerates the exact status space, then names the related tool pusaka_swap_to_usdc in parentheses so an agent can distinguish status-checking from initiating a swap. Nothing about the tool's core function is ambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reference to pusaka_swap_to_usdc suggests this is called after initiating a swap, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on polling cadence or whether a status is terminal, and no named alternatives for other swap-related queries.

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