CHECK_NEAR_SWAP_STATUS

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns swap state and transaction info, implying a read-only, non-destructive polling operation. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or that it doesn't modify state, which could aid agent decision-making.

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 a single sentence followed by a brief usage instruction, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given no output schema and low complexity (1 param, no enums, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the return data (states and transaction info). It could be more explicit about the format of 'detailed transaction information,' but it is sufficient for a status check tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'depositAddress' is explained in both). The tool description reinforces its purpose but does not compensate for missing parameter details.

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 clearly identifies the tool as checking the execution status of a NEAR intent swap, listing specific states (PENDING_DEPOSIT, PROCESSING, SUCCESS, REFUNDED, FAILED) and framing it as step 5 in a sequence, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like EXECUTE_NEAR_SWAP or GET_NEAR_SWAP_FULL_QUOTE.

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 states 'Use this to monitor swap progress after initiating the swap, and continue polling until the swap is complete,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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