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

Annotations already declare readOnly/safe behavior, so the burden is lower. The description adds two meaningful behavioral facts not in annotations: role-scoped visibility ('You see the agents your own role can see in PF Expert') and an auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app').

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?

Four sentences, and the first two are redundant: 'Agents in your agency with their IDs and number of listings' is immediately restated as 'Returns the agents of your agency.' The scoping and auth statements earn their place; the duplication does not.

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 must convey return content, and it does name the key fields (agent ID, listing count). It also discloses the role-based visibility constraint and auth requirement, leaving little an agent needs unstated.

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. This is the baseline score for a parameterless tool rather than a gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List agents'), scopes it to 'your agency,' and specifies the return fields (IDs and listing counts). An agent can distinguish this from client/lead/property listing siblings without opening the schema.

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 explains the downstream value of the returned agent_id ('assign a listing or filter listings and leads'), which implies why to call it, but does not state when to prefer it over any alternative or any exclusion condition. No sibling lists agents, so routing is largely implied rather than explicit.

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