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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered (the phrase 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant). The description does add real behavioral value by disclosing the return surface, notably 'tasks that currently need owner attention,' which tells the agent this call surfaces actionable state, not just a roster.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return contents, then the sibling routing. Efficient overall, though the standalone 'Read-only.' sentence duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be folded in or dropped.

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?

No parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden itself — and it does, enumerating the per-agent fields plus the attention-required tasks. An agent has enough to call this and know what it gets back.

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 the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit, and the empty schema is consistent with the described behavior.

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 authenticated user's deployed Companion teammates') and immediately enumerates what each entry carries (id, role, status, configuration, stats, latest task). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_content_agent, which fetches a single agent.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'Use get_content_agent with a returned id when the user asks about one agent's work, runtime, history, messages, knowledge, clips, or signals.' The condition that selects the sibling is spelled out, and the plural listing scope is implied for the overview case.

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