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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it states the operation is display-only, surfaces trial-related constraints, and reveals the returned evidence-verdict field. It does not explicitly say there are no side effects or cover auth/rate limits, but the display-only framing is a strong implicit safety signal.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then adding the two distinct behavioral details (trial constraints and evidence verdicts). No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the action, the scope, the information returned per agent, and the caller's motivation (see what a run would miss before paying). Nothing material is missing for a correct call.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no schema to supplement. The description instead clarifies what the parameterless call returns (agent list plus trial credit, scheduling restriction, and evidence verdicts), which is the only semantic support an agent needs.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('code-owned and custom managed agents available to a project'), and clarifies it uses display-only definition fields. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like devtune_list_agent_runs (runs, not agents) and devtune_run_agent (execution, not listing).

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 provides clear context for when this is useful: before paying for a run, to inspect trial credit, scheduling restrictions, and evidence of inaccessible sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended pre-run inspection use case is evident.

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