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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a confirmation step ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing') and the FIAT=0 convention, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what the confirmation flow entails, whether the operation is irreversible, or what side effects occur on balances—leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 opening sentence is repeated almost verbatim: 'Swaps one digital asset for another on an account level' appears twice. This redundancy wastes space and could confuse. The @param block is structured and useful, but the duplication in the main description prevents a higher score.

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?

The description covers parameter meanings and a key convention (fiat=0), but leaves gaps: the confirmation mechanism is only mentioned as 'yes/no before executing' without explaining how the agent receives or answers this prompt, and the return value is vaguely described as 'a json object' despite an output schema existing. For a financial swap tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the @param lines are essential. The description explains all 7 parameters, with valuable clarifications like account_fk being a DB ID (not an address) and not zero, and the FIAT=0 convention for digital_asset_fk/to_digital_asset_fk. Some descriptions are tautological ('The digital_asset_fk to swap'), but overall the description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Swaps one digital asset for another on an account level.' This provides a specific verb ('swaps') and resource ('digital asset' at account level), differentiating it from siblings like crypto_dex_swap or account_buy. The FIAT convention (fk=0) adds precision.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crypto_swap, account_buy, account_sell). The only contextual hint is 'on an account level,' but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The confirmation note and FIAT tip are parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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