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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope (what categories of information are returned), but does not say whether this is a static config fetch, how 'lean' vs 'full' differ, or whether the values are stable.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is over-compressed to the point of ambiguity, and front-loading 'Optional.' spends the most prominent position on the least informative token.

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 not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, for a discovery tool the description is missing the two things an agent most needs: when to invoke it and what the detail enum controls.

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 schema has one parameter, 'detail', with an enum (lean/full) and 0% description coverage. The description never mentions 'detail' or explains what a lean versus full response contains, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap — the one parameter the agent must reason about is undocumented everywhere.

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 lists the content the tool exposes (chains, limits, quote window, idempotency, validation rules, polling, flow) but never states a verb or a clear resource; it reads as a topic list rather than 'returns the swapper's constraints.' An agent can infer it is a discovery/config tool, but the leading 'Optional.' muddies what exactly is being retrieved.

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?

'Optional.' is the only usage signal and it is ambiguous — optional relative to what workflow step? No alternatives are named, even though siblings like plan_swap and create_swap clearly relate to pre-flight constraint discovery. The agent is left to guess when to call this versus those.

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