get_swap_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses the 404 on unknown id, that filledTxHash only appears once a swap has spent the offer, and that the poster and the half's nullifiers are never returned (a meaningful privacy constraint). It omits auth or rate-limit expectations, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose and dense with earned detail; almost no waste. The phrase 'Each row' is slightly off for a single-object getter and creates a small moment of confusion about whether the result is an array.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe the return shape, and it enumerates every field plus the error case and privacy exclusions. Missing only environment-level facts like auth requirements, which is beyond most agents' immediate need for a read getter.

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?

Only one parameter, offerId, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including uuid format and pattern. The description adds marginal meaning by framing the returned offer half as input for read_swap_offer or take_swap_offer, but nothing beyond the schema about the id itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One board offer by id'), scopes it to open-or-closed, and distinguishes it from read_swap_offer/take_swap_offer by noting the returned offer half is what those tools consume. An agent can tell it apart from list_swap_offers, my_swap_offers, and read_swap_offer without opening any 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?

Gives concrete context: 'The way to follow an offer after post_swap_offer or after taking one,' which ties it to specific sibling tools and lifecycle moments. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_swap_offers or read_swap_offer instead, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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