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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which this description reinforces with 'Read-only, free.' The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints by enumerating exactly what data is returned (advertiser, headline, body copy, media URL, platform, saved-at timestamp, taste tags) and confirming it mirrors the web app's Swipefile tab. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's output without contradicting any annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is three sentences long, each adding distinct value: the first defines what the tool does and what it returns, the second clarifies it is the same as the web app, and the third lists concrete use cases. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: it explains what data is returned, the scoping options are clear from the schema and description, and the use cases are provided. It does not omit any crucial details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly, given the simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (limit and collection) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only implies that omitting collection returns all collections, which is already noted in the schema's description ('omit for every collection'). Thus, the description adds minimal incremental value for parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to list the workspace's SWIPEFILE (saved-ad research board). It specifies the verb 'list', the resource (the swipefile), and details what it returns (collections, ads/creatives with fields like advertiser, headline, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the same board shown in the web app and is read-only, making it obvious it is distinct from save_to_swipefile or export_swipefile_deck.

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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios: 'what have we saved?', 'mine the user's own taste before planning an ad', and 'find a reference to remix.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the read-only note and the detailed content imply it is for reading, not modifying. The alternatives (save, export) are not mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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