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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by qualifying that only CLIs with working status detection are returned and that each entry includes status provenance and resume semantics, which tells the agent what is authoritative here.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded followed by the triggering use case. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 and the safety profile is annotated, so return values and permissions need not be spelled out. The description plus schema is sufficient to call this correctly; the only minor gap is that the description omits mention of the id filter for fetching a single profile.

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 100%, so the single optional `id` filter is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the id parameter or its filtering behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (return the coding CLIs agent-manager manages) and narrows scope to those with working status detection, which distinguishes it from the sibling documentation tools. The description also previews exactly what each entry contains (command, live status source, resume behavior).

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 frames a concrete use case: answering "does agent-manager support X". It gives clear context for when to reach for the tool, though it names no excluded cases or alternative tools for capability questions.

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