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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses sorting by Flika score descending and default limit of 25, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, includes two example queries. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description should mention what data the roster includes (e.g., agent names, contact info, Flika score). It only says 'full agent roster' and sorting without specifying fields. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the return value.

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 coverage is 100%, yet description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity of brokerage_id, brokerage_slug, or (name+state), and explaining the limit range and default ordering. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states it returns the full agent roster of a brokerage and specifies identification methods. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scout.agent_profile or scout.compare_agents, which are for single agent details or comparisons.

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?

Provides example queries ('show me Compass agents in Charleston') and implies use case for listing agents. Does not specify when not to use or compare to alternatives; the mention of scout.find_brokerage is a prerequisite, not an alternative.

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