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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, and the description adds genuinely new context: no auth required, the exclusion of private/draft agents, the sort order, and the supported contact channels. It stops short of noting result size, pagination, or truncation behavior for what could be a long list.

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 purpose in the first clause and then enumerates scope, sort, entry fields, exclusions, and auth in a compact run. Slightly dense with stylistic asides ('Rokha the generalist: talks, finds, builds') and appended URLs, but every element is informative.

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 usefully substitutes by listing each entry's fields (handle, name, role, avatar, badge, status, contact routes), and it covers auth and filtering. The only real gap is any statement about result volume or pagination for a directory that could return many agents.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema imposes no burden. No syntax or format details are needed, and the description correctly spends no space on inputs.

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 ('THE AGENTS DIRECTORY — every live public agent on Rokha') plus the ordering rule and entry composition. The explicit scope 'live public' plus 'Private and draft agents are never listed' cleanly separates it from the sibling agents_mine without opening either 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?

Usage context is clear: this is the global directory, not a personal listing, and it excludes private/draft agents, which implicitly routes an agent to agents_mine for those. It never names that alternative explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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