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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds two traits they do not: results are limited to 'recent' activity and to a single chain, and coverage is chain-dependent. It still omits how far back 'recent' extends and whether results are capped/paginated.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core resource statement front-loaded before the availability caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter, fully-documented schema with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is that 'recent' is undefined with no hint of result volume, so an agent cannot anticipate whether it receives five rows or five hundred.

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%, with the chain enum and address-format notes documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning ('one chain' per call) and otherwise defers parameter detail to the schema and to chord_chains.

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 a specific resource and scope: a single wallet's recent swaps restricted to one chain. That is enough for an agent to separate it from chain-wide or token-centric siblings like chord_trades, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen 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?

It discloses a real precondition ('Not every chain has this') and routes the agent to chord_chains for availability, which is useful. However, it never states when to pick this tool over chord_trades, chord_wallet, or chord_smart_money, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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