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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly frames the operation as read-only ('Read') and discloses the authentication requirement ('No auth'), which is valuable. It also previews the observable result fields, though it does not describe edge cases, staleness, or error behavior.

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 entire description is one tightly scoped sentence plus a short auth note. Every element—verb, resource, output fields, and auth status—pulls weight with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, lists what the response will contain, and states the auth requirement. It does not describe the exact output format, but the listed fields provide enough context for an agent to invoke and interpret 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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate because none exists.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Read', names the resource ('the ANAMIZED discovery swarm'), and enumerates the returned content: 'nodes, channels, last cycle, held briefs'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swarm_run, which implies action rather than status inspection.

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 gives one useful usage condition—'No auth'—so an agent knows credentials are not required. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like constellation_status or swarm_run, leaving the usage context mostly implied by the verb 'Read' and the tool name.

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