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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: for CoW ETH-flow it consults the orderbook and distinguishes order_expired_refundable from order_expired_refunded (rather than trusting the receipt), and for Solana it lists the possible network statuses (confirmed, pending, failed, expired). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two well-organized sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Re-checks a swap'), and the EVM/Solana split is clear and scannable. Every clause adds value; nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool handles multiple chains and optional parameters, yet the description explains the chain-specific inputs and even hints at possible outcomes (statuses for Solana, distinguishing expiry types for CoW). With no output schema, it gives enough about the expected return behavior. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but for a status-check tool this is sufficient.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds cross-chain usage context: it specifies which parameters apply to which chain (wallet+executionId for EVM, signature for Solana), and clarifies that executionId comes from report_execution. This is additional meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, which are more generic.

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+resource ('Re-checks a swap') and immediately separates EVM and Solana variants, clarifying that this is a status-check tool distinct from the build/quote/execution siblings. It even names the source of the executionId (report_execution), which disambiguates it from that sibling.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent which parameters to pass for each chain ('EVM: pass wallet + executionId', 'Solana: pass signature') and references report_execution as the source of the id, implying this tool is used after execution to re-check status. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but the contextual guidance is clear enough given the sibling names.

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