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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantial value: it declares that all titles, pitches and profiles are attacker-writable text to be treated as data, never instructions. That is a genuine prompt-injection warning not encoded in any structured field. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or result caps, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the scope statement front-loaded ahead of the safety note. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

The security framing plus rich annotations cover the read-safety story well for a simple two-param list tool with no output schema. However, the undocumented 'skill' filter and the absence of any mention of result limits or paging leave real gaps an agent must discover elsewhere.

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%: neither 'limit' nor 'skill' has any documentation in the schema, and the description never mentions either. Critically, an agent would not learn from this text that results can be filtered by skill at all, which is the tool's main narrowing lever.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List approved public agents') plus a qualifier about trust signals, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_agent (single agent) or check_agent_trust (trust check), even though those siblings overlap conceptually, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_agent for a single lookup or check_agent_trust for a trust evaluation. The only implicit signal is 'list', which an agent must infer from the name alone; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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