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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns the closest curated answer or explicitly reports that the topic is not covered, which sets expectations about partial/failed matches. It still doesn't say whether answers are static/versioned or subject to rate limits, so it stops 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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, when to use it vs the alternative, and what it returns. No filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, coverage topics, and return semantics. The only minor gap is that it doesn't characterize the shape of a returned answer (e.g., is it free text or structured), which the absent output schema leaves unspecified.

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 the single query parameter is already documented with examples and a 240-character limit. The description adds only the 'plain words' framing, which largely duplicates the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('look up') plus resource (Swop's own curated how-to answers) with the covered topic areas named. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the swop_get_my_* data tools, so an agent can separate documentation lookup from data retrieval without opening a 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 ('when the user asks how a Swop feature works') and an explicit alternative path ('for their own data use the swop_get_my_* tools instead'). The when/when-not boundary is stated rather than inferred.

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