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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is ordering (newest first), the hard cap of 100 results, the default of 20, and the explicit exclusion of live progress. It stops short of explaining how to page past the 100 cap, which is the one behavioral gap for a list tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and immediately followed by the when-to-use rule and the sibling exclusion. The quoted user phrasings are slightly conversational but they carry disambiguation value rather than filler.

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, the description must describe returns, and it does state ordering, scope, and result-count bounds. It does not say what fields a sweep entry contains or how to retrieve results past 100, which is a modest gap for a list endpoint.

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% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by supplying the maximum (100) and restating the default (20), neither of which the schema's terse "Maximum results" conveys.

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 ("The sweeps this account can see") plus ordering ("newest first"), and the account-visibility scope separates it from global sweep queries. An agent can distinguish it from get_sweep and find_sweep_runs 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 an explicit trigger condition with example user phrasings ("how did that one go", "what have I run") and names the alternative: get_sweep for live progress on a specific sweep. It also states the cost rationale for preferring this over re-running, which is real routing guidance.

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