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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the privacy model ("hides who swapped; the tokens and amounts are public") and the enumerated failure modes (thin pool, unreturnable refund, relay gas floor). It does not say what account/private balance must exist or whether gas/permissions are required to quote.

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-loaded with the outcome, then the read-only constraint, then the routing alternative — a sensible order with little waste. The parenthetical list of blocking conditions is slightly dense and grammatically tangled ("or none" trailing a long aside), but every clause carries information.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload (amount out, route, fee, first blocker or none). It does not specify the quote's shape, freshness, or price-impact/expiry semantics, which leaves some ambiguity for a 4-parameter quoting 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%, with per-parameter docs including the full network enum explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase "from a private Gloam balance" clarifies that `from` is the asset paid rather than a source identifier, but no additional syntax or units guidance is offered beyond the schema.

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 ("Quote a private swap from a private Gloam balance") and enumerates what the quote contains: expected output, route, vault fee, and the blocking condition. The closing line naming gloam_execute_private_swap makes it unmistakably distinct from the execution path.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool as "Read only: it never builds or sends a swap" and routes the agent elsewhere for execution ("To swap, use the Gloam app or the local server (npx -y @gloamtrade/mcp, gloam_execute_private_swap)"). Both the when and the when-not are stated with a named alternative.

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