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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of output shape, depth of analysis, whether it produces a four-quadrant structure, or any limitations. 'Rigorous, actionable' is marketing language, not behavioral information.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though the two adjectival qualifiers ('rigorous, actionable') do little work.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain enough for an agent to call this correctly, and it does not: it says nothing about the expected output, the structure of the analysis, or how the free-text input should be framed. For a framework-invocation tool this is a substantial gap, though the simplicity of a one-param tool keeps it from being a total failure.

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% for the single 'input' parameter, which already explains that it is the problem, decision, project, or question to analyze. The description adds no syntax, framing, or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully-documented parameter set applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Build ... SWOT'), and the tool name itself identifies the framework, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like run_five_forces or run_bcg_matrix by name. However, the description adds nothing to differentiate the SWOT framework's role or scope versus the other 18 framework tools, and 'rigorous, actionable' are vague qualifiers rather than scope information.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this framework versus alternatives such as run_competitive_landscape or run_mece_issue_tree, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The entire burden of deciding when SWOT is the right framework falls on the agent with zero guidance.

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