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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the retrieval model ('closest curated answer') and the failure mode ('says the topic is not covered'), which tells the agent not to expect open-ended generation.

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 that are front-loaded with the primary purpose before the routing rule and return behavior. The topical enumeration is dense but each item has routing value, so little is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it states the answer is a plain-language list / closest curated answer and that uncovered topics are reported as such. Combined with the routing rule and single documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents the query parameter and its 240-char limit, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the answerable subject areas (payment previews, claim links, Goldman AI credits, pairing, saved context), which meaningfully guides what queries to send.

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+resource: it answers 'what can I do with Swop?' and looks up Swop's own how-to answers, with a named list of covered topics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the swop_get_my_* siblings, so an agent can route 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 when-to-use condition ('user asks what Swop can do or how a feature works') and an explicit alternative with its selector ('for their own data use the swop_get_my_* tools instead'). Nothing is left to inference.

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