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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: 'authorized inputs' and 'Artifact bodies require read access' disclose an authorization requirement, and 'Missing evidence cannot be invented' warns that results may be incomplete — context annotations don't cover.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the sibling reference follows. 'Missing evidence cannot be invented' is slightly cryptic but carries a real warning, so it earns its place.

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 a single fully documented parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining behavioral context (auth requirement, partial-result warning) an agent needs. The only gap is that it doesn't further explain what 'context' comprises, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter fully documented ('Run ID from swarm_list_runs'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Read authorized inputs') on the Run resource, and names 'swarm_get_run' as the sibling for status inspection, which helps distinguish it. The term 'context' is somewhat abstract — it's clarified only partially by the mention of evidence and Artifact bodies — so it's clear but not razor-sharp.

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?

'before executing a Run' gives an explicit timing/context trigger, and 'Inspect status with swarm_get_run' routes the agent to the alternative for a different need. There's no explicit when-not or exclusion, but the positive guidance and the named alternative make usage clear.

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