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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: organization-wide scope, required Admin/Executive/Owner role, and rejection of single-team API keys with a clear rationale. This is exactly the kind of contextual disclosure that helps an agent avoid auth failures.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use case, then auth. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant detail.

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 six-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, returned fields, and auth prerequisites, while the schema covers all parameters. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly mention pagination or the response envelope, which would be useful given the limit/offset parameters and absence of an output schema.

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 all six parameters are already fully documented with types, defaults, ranges, and enums. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'List every agent across all teams in an organization,' and enumerates the returned fields (team, most recent run state, schedule states). This scope clearly differentiates it from sibling per-team/per-agent list tools such as listAgents and listQueueAgents.

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 explicitly states the intended use case ('external monitoring'), the questions it answers, and the required role and API-key scope. It does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'without a request per team or per agent' contrast provides strong routing context.

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