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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Poll' weakly implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether polling consumes messages, blocks, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. This is far too thin for a tool with zero structured behavioral 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 extremely concise with no wasted words and is front-loaded. The bracket prefix '[agents]' may be a category tag, but overall structure is efficient for a parameterless tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should explain what polling returns (e.g., message list, blocking behavior, pagination) to be complete. It says nothing beyond the bare action, leaving a significant gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema cannot be deficient. The description therefore does not need to compensate for parameter gaps; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 (Poll) and resource (swarm inbox), making the tool's basic action clear. However, it offers no scope details or differentiation from related siblings like swarm_relay, so an agent must infer whether this is a read-only check or something more.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, no preconditions, and no exclusions. It is essentially a bare label with zero usage context.

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