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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's burden is light. It adds the account-scoping fact and the returned attribute set, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether bots include inbox-assigned ones.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or preamble. The trailing field enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema enum, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Low-complexity read tool: one optional parameter, no required inputs, no output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient to call it correctly, with only minor omissions around result ordering or volume.

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% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the schema already explains projection semantics. The description's field list ('id, name, description and type') mirrors the enum values without adding syntax or behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 AI agents available to this account') and enumerates the returned attributes. It implicitly separates itself from list_agents (human agents) via 'AI agents' and 'bot', but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_details_of_a_single_account_agent_bot or list_agents. The reader must infer usage from the name alone.

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