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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what each entry reports — orderability and what has been measured — which tells the agent this is a status-bearing catalogue rather than a bare name list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the returned attributes trailing. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what coverage to expect; slightly awkward phrasing around "what has been measured" costs a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so at a summary level (orderability, measurement status). It stops short of naming the fields or shape, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("Pasportoo's specialist agents") and enumerates the agent categories covered (website audit, accessibility, speed and SEO, code security, pentest). This clearly separates it from the sibling offer/order tools, which act on a single agent rather than enumerating the catalogue.

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 catalogue framing implies this is the discovery step before get_website_audit_offer or prepare_website_audit_order, but the description never says so explicitly. There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the two siblings.

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