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

With no annotations provided, the description must signal the side-effect profile. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only status query, but the description does not explicitly state that no modification or cancellation occurs, nor does it mention any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the return payload and keeps the resource scope clear.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the return values do not need detailed explanation. However, the description omits usage guidance and any detail about the run_id source, so it is minimally adequate rather than fully self-contained for an agent unfamiliar with the tool family.

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 only parameter, run_id, has no schema description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some value by connecting run_id to a Swarme capability run, but it does not explain where run_id comes from, its format, or how to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a clear resource: status, cost, quote, and output metadata for a Swarme capability run. It is mostly distinguishable from sibling status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with swarme_ai_status or swarme_experiment_status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swarme_tool_quote or swarme_ai_status, nor any prerequisites like calling swarme_tool_run first. The intended use is only implied by the run_id parameter and the term 'status'.

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