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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral content: an access-verification requirement matching cambio.one's own check and the failure mode (no details returned without the address). It doesn't describe freshness/polling behavior, which would be relevant for a status tracker.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and stages, then the hard prerequisite, then the failure consequence. Almost no wasted text, though the parenthetical re-explaining the payout address lightly duplicates the schema.

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 summarizes the return value (stages with their times) and the empty-result case. Calling details are complete enough to invoke correctly; only polling/refresh expectations are unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add one meaningful thing beyond the schema — that receiving_address is effectively mandatory even though the schema lists only order_id as required — but otherwise restates the schema's wording.

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 ('Shows the status of a Cambio swap') and enumerates the lifecycle stages (deposit, confirming, exchanging, payout), which makes it clearly distinct in practice from get_quote and gas_help. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete usage condition: you need the order number AND the payout address the customer provided, mirroring cambio.one's own check, and warns that without the address no order details are returned. That is strong pre-call context, but it never contrasts this tool with get_quote or explains when status tracking is not the right call.

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