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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that the tool either returns the calling agent or enumerates owned agents, but says nothing about what 'current' resolves to (e.g. the active session agent) or limits on the listing.

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, front-loaded lines with the core behavior first and the parameter second. The parameter line mildly duplicates the schema's enum and default, but the restatement is cheap and aids scanning.

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 return values need not be described, and a single optional enum parameter is fully accounted for. The remaining gap is routing guidance against similarly named sibling agent tools, which is outside the bare minimum for a simple read tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does map each enum value to distinct behavior ('current' returns this agent, 'list' enumerates owned agents) plus the default. It stops short of clarifying what identifies the 'current' agent.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('the current agent or ... owned agents'), and the dual mode is spelled out. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like my_status or read_my_status, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent learns that 'current' vs 'list' selects a mode, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over my_status, read_my_status, or switch_agent. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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