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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value on top: it discloses that output is a collapsed summary, that internal agent types are remapped to product-facing roles like lead_finder, and that full ICP filters are truncated to a one-liner. That mapping/truncation behavior is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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-loaded with the core action and scope, then return shape, then the transition path to get_agent, then usage examples. The enumerated return fields earn their place because no output schema exists to carry them.

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 explicitly spells out the return payload (count, one-liner, list of {id, name, status, type, role, icp_summary}) and the truncation caveat, so nothing an agent needs to interpret results or decide on a follow-up call is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter surface to explain, and it correctly avoids inventing any input requirements.

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 ('List the specialist agents') plus the scope ('in the product/app the request is scoped to'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agent by defining this as the summary view. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes behavior: 'call get_agent (later) to load full detail' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and it gives concrete example questions ('how many specialist agents do I have?') that anchor when to reach for it.

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