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

readOnlyHint=true already marks it as a safe read. The description goes further by disclosing the returned domain values, notably the stage scale (1 waiting … 5 done), which an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema. It omits edge behavior such as what happens for an unknown id.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the scope first and then the payload fields; the compact '1 waiting … 5 done' enum gloss earns its space.

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 usefully characterizes the return payload, which is the main burden here. Only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed for a simple one-parameter read.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'swap id from the status page URL'. The phrase 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Status of one swap by id') and enumerates the fields it reports (stage, addresses, amounts, tx hashes). It is clearly distinct from the mutating sibling create_swap, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is the lookup-by-id tool, and the schema clarifies the id comes from the status page URL. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over create_swap or other siblings, and no exclusions.

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