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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by describing what each returned record contains (behavior, schedule, approval requirements, exclusions, integrations), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 filler, with the scope ('every agent') and the payload contents front-loaded before the usage trigger. The enumeration is long but every item conveys distinct returnable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so adequately by listing the fields of interest. It does not mention pagination or result volume, a minor gap for a no-parameter list tool.

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 100% for the single 'lang' parameter with an explicit enum and default, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about language selection; baseline 3 applies.

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 every Carragent AI agent') and enumerates the substance of each entry (behavior, schedule, approval gates, connected tools), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings get_agent or search_carragent, 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?

'Use to answer "what can Carragent do?"' gives a concrete trigger for invocation rather than leaving usage implicit. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., use get_agent for a single agent), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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