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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns IMD status, delivers result links and files only when available, and is free. It does not cover invalid-token behavior or polling expectations, but with annotations present this is reasonable.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted wording. The action and return behavior are front-loaded, and the final "Free" note is compact and useful.

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 simple read-only status/result lookup with two required parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and how it is scoped. The main remaining gap is that orderId semantics are only implied, not stated.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the token is a private order token tied to the order, but it does not explicitly describe the orderId parameter or distinguish its role from the token.

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 and resource: "Follow a Swarm Desk order," and states that it returns "IMD status" plus "result links and files" when delivered. That distinguishes it from order creation or quote tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "Follow a Swarm Desk order with its private order token," so an agent can infer this is for checking an existing order. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as swarm_order or swarm_quote, and no exclusions.

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