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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explaining why: nothing is sent, the taker's own wallet signs and broadcasts. It also discloses that the response bundles an approval and a simulation, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating expiry, refresh, or failure behavior of the returned payload.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the safety constraint, then the invocation. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by naming the transaction, approval and simulation. The main residual gap is the quoteId-vs-full-parameters branch: it does not say which of tokenIn/tokenOut/amount become unnecessary when quoteId is supplied.

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 57%; chain, taker, tokenIn and tokenOut are documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for quoteId (it comes from chord_quote and is an alternative to passing full parameters) but leaves amount and slippageBps unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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 ('The UNSIGNED transaction for a swap') and enumerates the three artifacts returned: the transaction, the approval, and a taker simulation. It also names the sibling that feeds it ('a quoteId from chord_quote'), so an agent can separate it from chord_quote without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear invocation path: pass a quoteId from chord_quote, or the full parameters. That routes the agent correctly, but it never states when this tool is inappropriate (e.g. Solana, which the schema notes is REST-only) or what happens if both a quoteId and full parameters are supplied.

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