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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with the refusal phrasing. The additional 'Called through their seat; their data comes back as it is' is vague and does not disclose concrete operational constraints such as auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

The core instruction and trigger are front-loaded, but the middle sentences ('a live seat on The Wall', 'Called through their seat') are unclear marketing-style context, and the registry URL is not needed for invocation. Several clauses do not earn their place.

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 simple read-only list with two optional parameters, the trigger and read-only framing are useful. However, with no output schema, the description leaves the return shape to inference, saying only that 'data comes back as it is' rather than what the list will contain.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds nothing about either parameter. The authCode is explained in the schema and limit only has a default, so the description does not compensate for the missing limit semantics or add meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 'List living Life Agents,' naming a specific verb and resource, and adds a concrete user trigger ('any agents / who's on the desk'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling life_* tools, but the resource and trigger make the intended call unambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use signal ('When the user says any agents / who's on the desk — call this') and states the read-only boundary ('anything that buys, sells or writes refuses'). There are no named alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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