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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine permission caveat beyond the schema — "Availability grants no submission permission" — which prevents the agent from assuming discoverability implies authorization. It stops short of describing result cardinality or ordering, so not 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 compact sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose plus sibling disambiguation, follow-up tool, and permission caveat. Very slightly dense with the semicolon-joined sibling clause, but there is no filler.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description only needs to add routing and caveats — and it does. Minor gap: it does not hint at what a capability entry contains or whether results are scoped to the calling identity.

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 single optional space_id already documents its source and the "omit if sole" default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("Discover this Space's supported intelligence operation kinds") and immediately scopes it against the nearest confusable sibling by noting that swarm_list_operations lists saved jobs. An agent can distinguish capability-types from job instances without opening either 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?

States the usage moment explicitly ("before submission") and names two alternatives with their distinct roles: swarm_list_operations for saved jobs and swarm_get_operation_contract for inspecting inputs. Nothing about tool selection 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.