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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's value is in disclosing the response shape: the six possible status values, the done flag, streaming progress, estimated wait, and refund reason. The edge-case rule "refund=true with status sent means part was refunded" is genuinely clarifying. It does not say what happens for a hash that isn't a swap deposit, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose question, then the return contents, then the sibling routing. The dense enumeration of return fields is information-bearing rather than filler, and no sentence is redundant.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing returns and does so completely: status values, done flag, summary line, progress, wait estimate, and refund reason. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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 schema already spells out that the hash is the inbound deposit transaction and that a 0x prefix is acceptable. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

Opens with the user-facing question it answers ("did my swap go through?") and then names the concrete resource: a swap status with an explicit status enum. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tx_status by naming it directly.

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?

Explicitly says "Start here for swap tracking" and routes the agent to get_tx_status only for raw stage detail, which is the one plausible alternative among the siblings. The selection condition is stated, not inferred.

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