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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with sort order, the field set returned, and the not_found behavior for an empty account. It does not mention pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, which is the main remaining 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and in what order, followed by return fields, alternatives, and the empty case. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return mention is sufficient, and the read-only annotations make a permission discussion unnecessary. However, with four undocumented optional parameters and a cursor-based pagination mechanism that is never mentioned, an agent that needs to page or filter is left to guess.

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 0% for all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. It never explains limit, cursor, enrich, or the target enum (monday/claude/all), leaving the filtering and paging semantics entirely opaque.

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 the Dactic agents"), scopes it to the signed-in user, and specifies ordering ("newest first") plus the returned fields (id, name, platform, status). It is clearly distinguishable from get_agent (details) and load_agent (run).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to sibling tools: load_agent to run one, get_agent for details, implying this tool is for discovery/enumeration only. It also covers the empty case ("Returns not_found when you have none"). It gives no guidance on when to use the filtering or enrichment parameters, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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