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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful output-scope details (agency-specific, name/role/phone) but does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or hidden filtering. This is adequate for a simple read-only list but adds only modest value beyond the 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. The subject is front-loaded, and the parenthetical field list is the minimum needed to define the output shape. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no nested objects, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the agency scope, the entity type, and the returned fields. Nothing critical is missing for a straightforward list operation.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output instead of inventing unnecessary parameter guidance.

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 identifies the exact resource ('this agency's listing agents') and the returned fields (name, role, phone), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts, list_properties, and get_agent-like operations. The title pairs well with the description, making the purpose immediate and unambiguous.

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 no guidance for when to choose this tool over alternatives among the 19 siblings. There is no mention of 'use this instead of list_contacts when...' or any context that would help an agent route between similarly named list tools.

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