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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the stability semantics of each identity field, warns that agentId is a messaging id not an execution id, and explicitly cautions against joining it with ids from other contexts. This goes well beyond a simple 'lists agents' statement.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses bulleted identity fields to keep the critical distinctions scannable. Each sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must document the return shape itself. It does: identity fields, status fields, brandKey, and ownerAddress. It also covers no-argument invocation, common pitfalls, and storage guidance. Nothing needed for correct use 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 no parameters, the schema is empty with 100% coverage, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' There is no parameter meaning to add, so the baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the agents you can reach.' It immediately distinguishes this listing tool from messaging tools by naming send_message and message_teammate, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use message_teammate to message agents, do NOT use send_message because it does not wake the recipient and can strand the message. It also gives a clear rule of thumb: read the name, use agentId to message and store. This is unambiguous routing to alternatives.

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