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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool lists a product for resale and that paid upstream inputs are gated behind allow_paid_inputs. This clarifies the free-input default and the behavior when paid inputs are allowed, adding meaningful context beyond the boolean hints.

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 compact and well structured: it states the core behavior first, then adds the one important caveat about paid inputs. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the complete input schema, full parameter coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the main side effect, listing for resale, and the paid-input gate.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters, including the behavior of allow_paid_inputs and max_price_usdc. The description mostly restates the paid-input conditional and adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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?

The description explicitly describes the action and result: run the swarm agency, compose a research product from free inputs, and list it for resale. This is specific and lets an agent distinguish this tool from revenue or settlement tools like swarm.revenue and swarm.settle.

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 gives clear invocation context: use this when composing a research product and listing it for resale. It also states the key conditional: pass allow_paid_inputs=true only when buying upstream x402 services is intended. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is clear enough.

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