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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for conveying behavior. It only says 'List all agents,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify state, or that it returns a list of agent records. Minimal transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is highly efficient and front-loaded with the key information.

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?

The description is very thin, providing no information about what is returned (even though an output schema exists), the meaning of 'agents,' or any limitations. Given the sibling tools, more context could be helpful to clarify the exact purpose and expected results.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The lack of parameters is clear from the schema, and the description does not need to elaborate on them.

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 'List all agents' clearly states the action (list) and resource (agents), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by implying a full listing, which is different from alerts, report, set budget, or track. However, it lacks any scope or context that might clarify what 'agents' refers to, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., ledger_alerts, ledger_report). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where listing all agents would be preferable to other operations.

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