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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: it lists the statuses returned, the amounts/transactions included, the pricing model ($0.002 over x402 on Base), the optional prepaid header, the free tier, and that no wallet or API key is needed. This is exactly the kind of behavioral and operational disclosure that helps an agent invoke correctly.

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?

The description is slightly long but every section earns its place: the purpose and status list are front-loaded, the usage prerequisite is stated in one short sentence, and the pricing/auth details are necessary for actual invocation. The opening question adds a human-friendly framing without harming clarity.

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 status tool, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, what input is needed, what outputs to expect, how it is priced, and what credentials are or are not required. The output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and the annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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 the schema already fully documents depositAddress as 'Deposit address from near-swap'. The description only repeats 'Required input: depositAddress' and adds no further semantic detail such as format, validation, or relationship to the swap lifecycle. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

The description names the specific resource ('status of a NEAR Intents swap by its deposit address') and the exact lifecycle states returned ('waiting for deposit, deposit seen, processing, done, refunded or failed'). The verb is implied by 'where is my swap' and 'status', which clearly distinguishes this from adjacent siblings like near_swap and near_swap_quote. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 description explicitly says 'Use after near-swap', which tells the agent when this tool is applicable and what prerequisite input it depends on. It also specifies required input and pricing/authentication terms. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, but for a status checker the usage context is clear.

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