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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It fails to mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or the meaning of 'registered' in the context of these agent standards. The 'list' operation implies read-only but gives no additional context.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It clearly identifies the action and resource, fitting a concise standard.

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 list operation with optional pagination and a filter, the description is minimally viable but lacks details about response format or pagination edge cases. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent may not fully understand the result shape, though the schema covers parameters.

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 input schema provides complete parameter descriptions (limit, offset, network) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies; the description does not explain how network filtering interacts with the agent standards.

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 clearly states the tool lists all registered ERC-8004 and Solana-8004 agents, using a specific verb (list) and resource (agents). It distinguishes from siblings like list_my_registered_agents by implying all agents, not just the user's.

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 alternatives like get_agent or list_my_registered_agents. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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