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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'READ-ONLY' plus the ownership scoping ('Only agents/departments you own are returned') and the presence of in-flight re-version status. This goes well beyond the annotation and clarifies exactly what data the agent can expect, especially the ownership restriction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, the ownership constraint is in the second sentence, and the usage guidance is compact but specific. The list of sibling tools is dense but directly actionable, making the description efficient rather than verbose.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what it returns, when to use it, and what not to expect (only owned resources). Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description properly focuses on output content rather than parameters, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List YOUR OWN agents') and enumerates the returned fields (id, slug, name, kind, status, in-flight re-version status), plus personal departments. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'Only agents/departments you own are returned', which separates it from browse/list-all 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?

Explicitly states when to call this tool FIRST: when needing a slug for lifecycle tools, to submit a draft, or to attach a knowledge base, and after reconnecting in a new session. It names concrete sibling tools as destinations, giving the agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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