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

Annotations already mark this as destructive/non-readonly, but the description adds valuable context: it does not sign, it is the final broadcast step, and it depends on prior signature steps. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a '[write]' tag and a clear verb, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundant schema 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?

With a simple 2-param schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it is the final broadcast step, requires prior signatures, and names the exact prerequisite tools. It lacks explicit mention of irreversibility, but destructiveHint covers that.

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?

The input schema is self-explanatory with 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description need not add param details. It provides no extra nuance beyond what the schema describes.

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 states a specific action ('Broadcast a staged swap to the chain') with a clear resource and distinguishes itself from the sign_approve and sign_swap sibling tools. This makes it immediately obvious what this tool does that others do not.

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 the tool does not sign and requires all signing steps to be complete, even naming the prerequisites (sign_approve for EVM+approval, then sign_swap). This provides clear sequencing and prevents misuse as an early step.

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