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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), lowering the burden. The description adds one useful piece of context — that fill/cancel events are included — but says nothing about behavior when offer_id is unknown or not found.

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?

A single compact clause that front-loads the key facts with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly telegraphic as a sentence fragment.

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 should describe the return shape; it partially does by mentioning fill/cancel events. Missing error/miss behavior and offer_id format leave gaps for a lookup 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 coverage is 0% and offer_id has no type/format documentation in either place. The description merely restates the parameter name ('by offer_id') without indicating expected format (hex, integer string, prefix) or lookup semantics.

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 resource (swap offer) and the retrieval mode (single, by offer_id), plus what comes with it (fill/cancel events). It implicitly contrasts with the list_swap_offers sibling via 'One swap offer', though it never names it.

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 singular 'by offer_id' hints at when to use it over list_swap_offers, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus the list tool, nor any stated prerequisite for obtaining an offer_id.

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