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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety burden is light. The description goes further by disclosing the exact payload shape and the fact that it reports 'current state'/'status', which usefully explains why idempotentHint=false applies (the swap's status can change between identical calls). It stops short of mentioning any rate limits or staleness guarantees.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the returned fields, with no padding. Slight redundancy between 'detailed information ... current state' and the later 'status and queue type' restatement, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields. Nothing about calling it correctly is missing, though it could have distinguished itself from the adjacent tx/swap lookup siblings.

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?

Only one parameter (tx_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'of a specific swap' adds only marginal confirmation that tx_id identifies the swap; no format or format examples are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed information about a specific swap') and enumerates what is returned (assets, amounts, destination, affiliate, status, queue type). It contrasts implicitly with list-style siblings like get_swap_history, but never names an alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The final sentence gives a usage cue: 'Use this to track the progress of a specific swap transaction.' That is implied guidance rather than an explicit rule, and it offers no when-not condition or named alternative among the many swap/tx siblings (get_swap_history, get_tx_details, get_tx_status).

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