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

Annotations already declare the key safety traits: not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds no delivery semantics, routing behavior, failure modes, or permission requirements beyond those annotation 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?

It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. But it is under-specified rather than appropriately informative, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 relay tool with a nested message payload, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage, the definition is missing too much. An agent would not know expected delivery behavior, return values, or how to structure the message object.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate. The required target_agent_id and nested message object are undocumented, and even the ttl hint exists only in the schema.

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 states a verb ('Relay') and resource ('message through swarm'), giving a minimal sense of what happens. However, it is vague about what relaying entails and does not clearly differentiate it from siblings such as swarm_inbox or agents_register.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like swarm_inbox or other agent tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues.

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