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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious operational context the annotations cannot carry: the AdvSwapQueueEnabled feature-flag prerequisite and the shape of returned entries. It does not explain pagination behavior, error/empty responses when the flag is off, or ordering side effects.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, what can be filtered, and the runtime precondition. No repetition of parameter syntax or annotation content, and purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Seven optional parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety is covered by annotations, so the description's job is mostly to convey the return shape, which it does at a high level since no output schema exists. The main gap is that it doesn't say what an agent sees when AdvSwapQueueEnabled is false or how the queue is ordered by default.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (limit, offset, sender, sort_by, sort_order, source_asset, target_asset) are already documented with defaults and allowed values. The description only loosely gestures at 'source/target asset, sender, and pagination' and omits the sort parameters entirely, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Returns the limit swaps queue containing pending limit orders') and enumerates the entry contents (swap details, ratio, age, expiry). However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling get_limit_swaps_summary or get_swap_queue, so an agent must guess which returns the raw queue versus a summary.

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 usable context: it supports filtering by source/target asset and sender, plus pagination, and it discloses a real gating precondition ('Limit orders only work when AdvSwapQueueEnabled is true'). It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. the summary tool) or stating when not to use it, so it clears the 'clear context' bar without reaching explicit routing.

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