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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description is not burdened with that. It adds value annotations cannot: the fact that the response is a live snapshot of pending work and enumerates the fields each entry carries (assets, amounts, destinations, state). Minor gaps remain around queue size, ordering, or freshness guarantees, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 earning its place: one for identity/scope, one for return shape, one for use case. The core definition is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the result set, and it does so by listing the entry fields. It is essentially complete for a zero-arg read tool; only secondary details like freshness, ordering, or queue size are omitted, which are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes no parameters (0 params, no required fields), so per the baseline this dimension is scored 4. The description correctly implies the tool is unfiltered and returns the whole current queue, which matches the empty schema.

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 current swap queue') and defines the contents as 'pending swaps waiting to be executed,' which distinguishes it semantically from the scheduled/outbound queues. However, with near-name-collision siblings like get_queue, get_scheduled_queue, and get_outbound_queue in the toolset, the description never explicitly names or contrasts against them, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use this to monitor swap processing and identify stuck transactions' gives clear operational context for when the tool is relevant. It stops short of exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., scheduled vs outbound queues), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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