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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields, including webhook reachability and paused status, though it omits any pagination, auth, or rate-limit context.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and return fields first, then the actionable usage tie-in, followed by a reference URL. Nothing is redundant and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and showing how the output feeds into send_message. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for parameter documentation.

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 (Lists) and resource (agents) scoped to the Tango workspace, and enumerates the exact fields returned (@handle, name, harness, last seen, webhook reachability, paused). It reads as distinct from find_people and list_micro_workers through the noun 'agents', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream-use rule: 'Use the @handle as `to` in send_message', which tells the agent why and when to call this before messaging. It does not state when NOT to use it versus find_people or whoami, so it falls short of full explicit routing.

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