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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' phrasing is redundant. The description does add useful context about the resource scope and returned properties, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, default company behavior when companyId is omitted, or pagination 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and output contents with no filler. Every phrase earns its 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 read-only list operation with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description covers the core purpose and result shape. The main gap is the optional companyId parameter semantics, but the overall tool is simple enough that this does not make the description inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains the optional companyId parameter, its default, or how it scopes the results. 'company's' only weakly implies company context. The schema provides pattern and length constraints but no semantic guidance, so the description does not compensate for the parameter meaning gap.

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 ('List'), identifies the resource ('the company's registered payment agents (assistants)'), and specifies the returned data fields ('caps, allowed rails, status'). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation- or action-oriented siblings like draft_agent_account, autonomous_pay, and read_agent_spend.

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?

The description gives a clear context for when to use it: when listing the company's registered payment agents and their autonomy envelopes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is sufficiently clear that an agent can route to it appropriately.

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