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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds real operational context on top: the full status lifecycle, the fields returned (amounts in/out, refund reason, origin and destination transactions), plus the payment model ($0.002 per call via x402 on Base), the x-credit-token prepaid header for unlimited calls, a 1-free-call-per-day allowance, and that no API key is required. Auth and rate-limit behavior is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 user-facing question and the core definition before the commercial details, and every sentence carries information. The pricing/auth sentence is dense and slightly long, but it earns its place because it is the only place payment behavior is documented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the status enumeration, the precondition, and the payment/auth model, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents depositAddress fully, and the description's "Required input: depositAddress" merely confirms it. The only added nuance is the implicit link to near-swap as the source of the value, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

Names a specific resource (a NEAR Intents swap) and a specific operation (look it up by deposit address), and enumerates the status values the tool resolves to. This clearly separates it from near_swap (which creates the swap) and near_swap_quote (which prices one).

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 after near-swap" gives an explicit sequencing precondition that tells the agent exactly when this tool applies and where the depositAddress comes from. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming an alternative status-check sibling, so it is not a full 5.

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