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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral output (per-agent stats including connections, credits spent, status) and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not describe response format, pagination, ordering, or potential caveats.

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 sentence that immediately names the core action, the resource, the differentiator from the sibling, and the specific stats included. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is practical and sufficiently complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns (agents with stats) and how it differs from `list_agents`. Minor omissions like exact response shape or pagination are non-critical for invocation.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists agents and includes per-agent usage stats (connections, credits, status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `list_agents` by saying it is 'Same as list_agents' but with stats.

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 names the alternative `list_agents` and explains the differentiator: users who want plain agent lists can use `list_agents`, while those who want stats should use this tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the guidance is clear.

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