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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it chains sibling tools, incurs real cost with a quoted maximum, has a 10-60 second latency, and returns numbers with sources. This helps the agent set expectations and does not contradict the readOnlyHint.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, mechanism, output format, billing model, and latency with no fluff. The key action is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 delegation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the agent does, what it returns, how long it takes, and how it is billed. However, it could be more explicit about the types of tasks suited for this tool versus direct sibling use, which is only implied. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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%, and each parameter (task, model, quote) already has a semantic description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific action ('Give a whole task to SwogeAgentic'), identifies SwogeAgentic as a Claude agent that chains the tools above, and specifies the output format ('answers with the numbers it read, with sources'). It differentiates itself from the sibling tools by being a higher-level orchestrator, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 phrase 'Give a whole task' implies this is for compound research/execution rather than a single tool lookup, and 'chains the tools above' suggests using it when multiple sibling tools are needed. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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