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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds that the result includes a THORChain explorer link and the payout tx link when one exists, plus the full state machine. With no output schema, this is meaningful disclosure. It stops short of saying what happens for an unknown txid or a non-swap transaction.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its return value in one sentence, then attaches a usage pointer. The parenthetical workflow list is a bit of a laundry list but still compact and skimmable.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, it covers what the call returns (state, links) and how it fits into broader workflows. The main remaining gap is failure behavior for unrecognized or pending-outside-THORChain txids.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it specifies 'inbound txid' — the source-chain deposit hash rather than the payout hash, which is a real disambiguation the schema pattern does not provide. It leaves the 64-hex format to the schema regex, which is fine.

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 and resource: reads swap progress for a THORChain swap keyed by inbound txid, and enumerates the lifecycle states. The title narrows it to LTC/DOGE/BCH, which separates it from generic siblings like tx_status or verify_tx, though the description body never names those alternatives directly.

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?

Mentions that it should be combined with swapchan_playbook and lists workflow names, which implies context, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not rule (e.g. versus tx_status or get_route_status). The pointer is a soft hint rather than routing guidance.

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