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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that this is a 'Power tool' with GET-only access, and reveals it can target ANY collection (including payments or shipments), implying potentially sensitive data access. It also specifies the backend REST API path. These are useful behavioral details not present in the annotation, though the core safety trait (read-only) is already declared.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Power tool: read-only...'). The two sentences contain only essential information: the fallback role, example collections, parameter list, and API endpoint. No redundant wording or 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?

Given the tool's generality and 8 parameters, the description covers the core context: what it does, when to use it, and the collection/parameter requirements. With no output schema, it doesn't need to describe return values, but it could slightly expand on the nature of results (e.g., that it returns a list of objects). Overall, adequate for a generic fallback tool.

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 provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description only lists the parameter names ('limit, page, where, sort, expand, fields, search') without adding new meaning or examples beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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: 'read-only (GET only) access to ANY Swell model not covered by a dedicated tool' with a concrete verb ('query') and specific resource examples (stock, promotions, giftcards). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it covers models lacking a dedicated tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for any Swell model 'not covered by a dedicated tool', naming examples. This implicitly tells the agent to prefer dedicated sibling tools when they exist. It also instructs on required inputs ('Supply the collection name plus the usual list params'), making the usage context clear.

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