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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: source metadata (poaswap, fetched_at), pending_receipt semantics (held, not paid), and the re-take caution. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the status purpose and then adds usage rules, so the important information comes early. It is slightly dense and parenthetical, but most sentences earn their place.

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?

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, it explains the main returned categories and gives key operational cautions. A minor gap is that it refers to an 'available' false condition without introducing that field explicitly, leaving a small ambiguity about the return shape.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 names the resource (swap status), enumerates the status values, and lists aggregate fields such as open offer count and market stats. It is clearly distinct from offer-detail siblings, but it does not explicitly name get_swap_offer or list_swap_offers to sharpen that distinction.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: check before any swap, do not call swap-take when available is false, and read status after a timed out take before any re-take. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules rather than implied usage.

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