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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so by stating 'no LLM cost on this call itself — pure DB read,' which signals a safe read-only operation. It adds useful context about pagination and query shape, though it stops short of describing the return payload or default ordering.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the no-cost/read-only nature before the routing guidance. The phrase 'Aurora agent surface' is slightly abstract, but the core instruction and exclusions are delivered without wasted sentences.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers cost/read-only behavior, when to use it, alternatives, and pagination. It lacks an explicit statement of what the response contains, but for a list operation with a fully documented parameter schema this is a minor gap.

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 each parameter is already documented with meaning. The description adds only 'using the same query shape as the agent controller,' which is contextual but not a substitute for the schema's parameter details.

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 'List your Aurora agents with pagination', giving a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes this tool from strategy-creation/backtesting siblings by directing users to create_portfolio, backtest_portfolio, query_*, and fetch_portfolios for those tasks.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Useful only when the user is actively operating an Aurora agent.' It also names the alternative tools for other intents, so an agent can route correctly without inferring.

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