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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — 'Grants no authority' — clarifying that reading the contract does not confer permission to act, which prevents a plausible misuse pattern.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the alternative, then the authority caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what is read, when, the sibling alternative, and the authority limit. It stops short of hinting how human gates are actually satisfied (presumably via the approval tools), which would have closed the loop for a gate-blocked agent.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining 'Space ID from swarm_list_spaces; omit if sole.' The description adds no further detail on space scoping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and enumerates exactly what the contract contains: agent-work inputs, executor requirements, human gates. It also names the sibling swarm_get_operation_contract and the condition that selects it (intelligence inputs), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 launching' gives explicit timing for when to call this. The alternative is named with a clear routing rule: 'For intelligence inputs use swarm_get_operation_contract,' which is exactly the when-vs-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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