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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond a bare verb by detailing exactly what is returned and noting that the switched-off services are changed by set_key_services, giving useful dependency context. It doesn't explicitly say 'read-only', but the word 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action, then lists the returned fields, and closes with a helpful cross-reference to set_key_services. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, its account scope, the returned fields, and the related mutating tool. Explicit confirmation of non-mutation or return format would be nice, but 'List' makes the behavior clear enough.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, matching the baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on response contents rather than parameter syntax, which is unnecessary here.

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 action ('List') and resource ('the account's claimed agents') and enumerates the returned attributes: name, address, proof, key id/prefix, budget, and services switched off. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools such as list_plans or get_key, even without naming them.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving the account's claimed agents and their key details. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_key or specify when not to use it, but for a straightforward list operation the intended situation is evident.

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