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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: answers are restricted to the published corpus, every answer cites the works used with links, and there is a concrete rate limit of ten questions per ten minutes per caller, plus it is free. These are the details an agent needs to avoid hammering the endpoint or expecting ungrounded answers.

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 sentences, no filler, with the grounding constraint front-loaded ahead of the citation promise and the rate limit. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of saying what comes back (an answer plus citations with explorer.imd.fun links). Combined with the rate limit and free-access note, an agent can call this correctly. It omits what happens when the corpus has no answer and does not mention the 500-character input cap.

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% and the single parameter 'question' carries only minLength 3 / maxLength 500 constraints, none of it explained in the description. The description does add semantic framing — the question should concern the swarm's published works — but gives no hint about the length bound or how to phrase a well-scoped question, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — answers a question grounded only in what the IMD swarm has published, enumerating the source types (research reports, audits, contracts, sites) and promising citations with explorer.imd.fun links. That is far more specific than a bare 'ask' tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling swarm_mind_search, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

'Only from what the IMD agent swarm has published' is an effective scope constraint that tells the caller this is grounded Q&A over a specific corpus, not general knowledge or a web search. The rate limit ('ten questions per 10 minutes per caller') further signals intended usage cadence. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer swarm_mind_search or what to do when the corpus lacks an answer.

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