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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: results are ranked 'best first', include 'explorer links', and the service is 'Free'. It stops short of explaining rate limits or response size.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It moves from resource to matching behavior to result ordering to cost in a compact sequence.

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 one-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main return shape: published works, ranked best first, with explorer links, and free access. It remains slightly incomplete because query syntax and potential pagination or result-field expectations are not described, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 only parameter is undocumented in the schema beyond length constraints. The description says the query is matched against published works, but adds no syntax, field-selection, scoring, or format guidance to compensate 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?

The description states a specific search operation over a clearly named resource: 'The IMD swarm's published works (research, audits, contracts, sites) that match a query.' It also specifies result ordering and links, so an agent can distinguish this from a generic lookup or ask 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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as swarm_mind_ask. There is no when-not-to-use rule, no prerequisite, and no routing hint beyond the implied 'matches a query' behavior.

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