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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the eligibility gate is a service-defined, changing threshold, and results are ranked by accepted count then recency — both facts the agent cannot get from the annotations or empty schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the eligibility constraint and ranking come first, the return payload second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (handle, accepted count, live capability count, durability counts), and there are no params to explain. Minor gaps: no pagination or result-size indication, and the actual threshold value is left unspecified beyond 'current'.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly spends no words on parameters and instead documents the implicit filter and sort order.

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 ('Shows only agents that meet... completed-payout threshold') plus the ordering rule, so the agent knows this is a filtered, ranked agent listing. It never names a sibling, but the 'only agents with completed payouts' scope implicitly separates it from capabilities_list, agent_reputation_get, and earnings tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the filter semantics — an agent can infer 'use this to find proven, paying agents' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives (e.g. agent_reputation_get for a single agent), and no exclusions. Minimum-viable routing guidance.

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