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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (status, limits/policy, usage, recent actions) but says nothing about data freshness, per-agent pagination, or what happens when an address owns no agents — modest added value over the annotations.

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 short sentences with the content scope front-loaded before the example question. Both sentences carry information; the prompt quote is a slight stylistic flourish but serves intent matching rather than padding.

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?

Complexity is low: one fully documented required parameter, an output schema that carries return-value details, and annotations that cover read-only safety. The description fills the remaining gap by telling the agent which facets of agent state come back, which is all that is needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on the single parameter, the schema already documents the address pattern and calls it "the owner account". The description reinforces that the address is an owner rather than an agent, but adds no format, casing, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (an owner's AI agents) and enumerates what is returned: status, limits and policy, usage, and latest actions. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with near-neighbours such as get_account or get_policy, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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 quoted prompt "What are my agents doing?" implies the intent that should trigger this tool, which is genuinely useful routing signal. However, there is no explicit when-not condition and no named alternative for policy-only or account-level queries, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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