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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'read-only (GET only)' and adds the underlying REST endpoint GET /{collection}, which is genuine behavioral context. It doesn't discuss rate limits or response shape, but for a read-only passthrough query tool the safety profile is well covered.

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 tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the sibling differentiator, then params, then the REST mapping. 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?

For a generic read-only query passthrough with no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps: no mention of how to discover valid collection names or pagination envelope, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so all eight parameters are already fully documented in the schema including examples and defaults. The description only lists the param names, adding no semantics beyond that. 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+resource+scope: read-only GET access to any Swell model. It explicitly carves out its niche versus the dedicated sibling tools ('not covered by a dedicated tool'), so an agent can distinguish it from swell_list_products, swell_get_order, etc.

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?

Clearly states the context of use ('ANY Swell model not covered by a dedicated tool') and names concrete examples like stock, promotions, giftcards. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the 'not covered by a dedicated tool' qualifier effectively implies the routing rule.

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