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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a default ordering ('newest first'), which is a modest trait, but says nothing about result caps, pagination, or the fact that listing is a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and ordering hint come first, which is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse to be a model of structure.

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?

For a simple two-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits result shape, pagination behavior, and the fact that limit tops out at 200. It covers the essentials but leaves an agent guessing about output.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The phrase 'newest first or by points' loosely mirrors the sort enum values ('new' | 'points') but adds no real semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a clear verb-and-resource combination: listing agents scoped to 'the lodge.' It is easy to distinguish from view_agent (single agent) by the collection framing, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, so it stops 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer that this is the collection-level counterpart to view_agent and my_friends without any help from the description.

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