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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include counts, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or the shape of each entry beyond annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the follow-up action. No filler, though the parenthetical example list is slightly informal and the phrasing is telegraphic rather than a full sentence.

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 carries the burden of describing return values; it says 'with counts' but not the entry shape (e.g., slug plus count) or ordering. For a simple zero-parameter enumeration tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the exact response structure.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The mention of a 'kind slug' refers to the downstream sibling's parameter, not this tool's input, and is not misleading.

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 precisely ('types of verified intermediaries') and gives concrete examples (corporate agents, brokers, TPAs) plus the return payload ('with counts'). It is clearly a discovery/enumeration tool, distinguishable from search_registered_agents, though the verb itself is only implied by the name.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use a kind slug with search_registered_agents,' which tells the caller this is a prerequisite lookup step. It does not state when not to use it or contrast with other list_* siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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