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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds two useful facts beyond that — results are scoped to the workspace and sorted newest first — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 compact sentence with the ordering and filter front-loaded and no filler. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a full clause, which makes it slightly less scannable than an explicit verb-first statement, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage and annotations that cover safety, so the description's burden is small. Scope, ordering, and filtering are all stated; only secondary details like result shape or match semantics are absent, which is acceptable given there is no output schema to lean on but also little complexity to explain.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default of 20 and the 1-50 range for limit. The description restates the query semantics ('words in the name or description') without clarifying matching behavior such as substring vs. whole-word or case sensitivity, so it adds little over the schema.

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 names the resource (agents in the workspace), the ordering (newest first), and the optional filter, so an agent can tell this is a list/search operation rather than a single-record fetch. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_agent or the other search_* tools, so sibling differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'optionally' signals that calling with no query returns the full list, and a query narrows it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_agent (known ID) or the other search_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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