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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints: atomicity, backend route selection, time-sensitive calldata, retry expectations, and tenderly simulation pre-broadcast validation. This is exactly the kind of operational behavior an agent needs to invoke the tool safely.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves to critical usage caveats and safety instructions. Every sentence provides actionable information: atomicity, sibling tool preference, time sensitivity, retry policy, and tenderly validation. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all important context: when to use it, when not to, key behavioral caveats, retry behavior, and pre-broadcast validation. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and safely invoke the tool.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema, including defaults and units. The description adds general context about swapping assets but does not need to repeat parameter-level details. It earns a baseline 3 because the schema carries the parameter semantics burden.

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: 'swaps assets within an Arcadia account in one atomic transaction.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling write_account_close by explaining when swap-only is intended versus when closing a position requires the batched tool. The resource, action, and scope are unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'If you are closing a position (swap + repay + withdraw), prefer write_account_close' and 'Only use this tool for standalone swaps within an active position.' It also gives concrete operational guidance: broadcast within 30 seconds, retry at least once on revert, and do not broadcast if tenderly_sim_status is 'false'. An agent can determine exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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