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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'Read-only' clearly communicates that the call has no side effects. 'List all AI agents in the account' also states the operational scope. It does not mention response shape or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is a minor gap.

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 convey purpose, scope, and safety with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every phrase 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 zero parameters and low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies what is listed, at what scope, and that it is read-only. A small gap is the absence of any return-value detail, but the tool name and 'List' strongly imply a list result.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already conveys. This matches the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('all AI agents in the account'), and explicitly notes the operation is read-only. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_agents_with_stats or get_agent.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool instead of closely related siblings such as list_agents_with_stats, get_agent, or crm_list_workspace_agents. The read-only nature and account scope imply some context, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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