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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the auth requirement (Bearer account key or OAuth token) and the returned fields, but it does not describe pagination behavior or limits beyond what the schema partly covers.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The auth sentence earns its place, though the field list is somewhat jargon-heavy and the description remains minimal.

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 simple read-only list tool with only two parameters, the description covers the purpose, auth, and returned field categories. However, it leaves pagination and offset behavior unexplained, which is a noticeable gap given there is no 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is only 50%: limit is documented as "1 to 50, default 20," while offset has no description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining pagination semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: "List your agents." It also names the kinds of data returned, so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like discover_agents or search_agents, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase "your agents" implies listing the authenticated user's own agents, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as discover_agents or search_agents.

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