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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing server-side behavior: the server reloads the stored build, submits the signed CoW order, returns a uid, verifies the Solana fee payer/transaction, and has no transaction hash for the CoW path. It also clarifies credential behavior, adding real context without contradicting the annotations.

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 but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the purpose, then gives three compact path-specific sentences and a final credential note, with no filler or repetition.

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 multi-path, 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers parameter routing, server-side effects, auth, and the CoW path's uid return. It stop short of describing return or error semantics for the EVM-transaction and Solana paths, which is a minor but real gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds crucial cross-parameter relationships: wallet + txHash + quoteId for EVM, wallet + chainId + quoteId + signature for CoW, and buildId + signature for Solana. This combinatorial guidance is not visible in the flat schema and meaningfully helps an agent assemble correct calls.

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 'Reports a completed swap, closing the loop,' which clearly names the action and resource. It then details three distinct invocation paths (EVM transaction, EVM CoW signature, Solana), making it easy to distinguish from sibling build/quote/status tools.

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 gives precise parameter combinations for each execution path and an explicit exclusion: 'never report an approve step as an execution.' It also notes that no API key is required. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like swap_status, but the path-specific guidance is strong enough to route correct usage.

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