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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the response shape — agentType/customer/instanceCount semantics and the 'Role families' rollup that appears when instanceCount > 1 — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and uses the remaining two sentences to explain the response shape. Slightly verbose about the rollup, but every sentence carries information and nothing is filler.

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 helpfully documents the returned fields and the multi-instance rollup behavior. The main gap is that usage/alternative routing and the meaning of the filter parameters are not addressed, but for a simple read-only list tool it is largely complete.

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 100% (limit, customerId, includeVariants all documented in-schema), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters — notably it does not explain the superadmin-only customerId or the includeVariants flag — so it sits at the baseline.

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+resource ('List all agents') scoped to the authenticated customer, and enumerates the key fields each agent carries (agentType, customer, instanceCount). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_agent, though it never names siblings like list_runs or list_personas explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over get_agent for a single agent, or over get_fleet_overview for aggregate views. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer routing from the names alone.

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