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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are ordered by address, pagination is cursor-based, and the cursor is round-tripped via 'after'. It does not mention rate limits or page-size constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two dense sentences plus a routing clause; scope and ordering are front-loaded, then the paging procedure, then the disambiguation. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating the payload fields (balance, lifetime rewards, epochs paid, inviter, estimated family size, LabLeak profile) and the ordering. Combined with the cursor instructions and the presence of annotations for safety, nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 both 'after' and 'limit' are already fully documented in the schema, and the description largely repeats the cursor round-trip ('pass next_cursor back as after'). It adds no format, edge-case, or default nuance beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) plus resource (every Agent), the ordering (by address), the paging model, and the fields returned. It also names the sibling it is not ('For one Agent use get_address'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_address without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('export or scan all Agents') and gives the concrete continuation procedure ('pass next_cursor back as after for the next page'). It also names the alternative tool (get_address) and the condition that selects it (one Agent), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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