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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the tool has no parameters. The description adds the scope ('global') and lists the metrics, but it does not disclose freshness, caching, computation window, or any rate/authorization context beyond what annotations and the output schema already provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the purpose, and uses the second sentence only to enumerate the returned statistics. There is no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless, read-only statistics tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and names the metrics returned. The remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance among the many sibling stats and graph tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no contradiction or missing parameter information is present.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get global Swarm Intelligence statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned, so the agent knows exactly what the tool provides. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as mt_get_swarm_graph or mt_get_trust_score, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'global' implies aggregate statistics rather than per-agent or graph views, but no sibling tool is named and no inclusion or exclusion conditions are given.

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