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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it specifies the auth mode, the 401/403 error conditions for invalid or missing app-token mode, the return array shape (ids, names, config), and the empty-list behavior. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool the provided context is substantial.

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 dense but well-structured: the core purpose appears first, followed by return format, auth requirements, and error cases. Every sentence carries useful information, and the endpoint paths are integrated without excessive digression. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because some details duplicate the schema, but it remains focused and readable.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is self-sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, which endpoints are involved, how appId defaults, what auth mode is required, what errors can occur, and what the response contains. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing external documentation.

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?

The schema already documents the single appId parameter, including its 24-char hex format and default behavior. The description repeats these facts and adds the corresponding REST endpoint, but it does not contribute new semantic information about the parameter itself. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List the reusable saved agents of an app', and expands on it with concrete endpoints. It defines what a saved agent is, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like get, create, update, delete, or clone. The agent can clearly tell this is the collection-listing operation, not a single-agent retrieval or mutation.

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 description supplies clear usage context: it must run in app-token mode after ethora-app-select and ethora-auth-use-app, and it explains how the appId resolves when omitted. It also states the empty-list outcome when no agents exist. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like ethora-agents-get-v2 for single-agent retrieval, so the when-not guidance is only implicit.

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