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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating 'Uses 0 credits' (cost) and 'Owner/admin only' (access control), which are not in the annotations. This is useful additional transparency without contradicting the structured data.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: three short sentences that front-load the access restriction, state the primary purpose, and disclose the credit cost. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: what it shows, who can use it, and its cost. It does not describe the output format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that need. It could arguably mention what 'registry launch gates' means, but that is domain-specific and not critical for invocation. Overall, it is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there is nothing to document). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed. The tool's behavior is fully described without requiring parameter explanation.

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 clear verb ('Shows') and a specific resource ('backend-ready Field Agents and registry launch gates'), and includes an access restriction ('Owner/admin only') that distinguishes it from many sibling tools. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, and the name itself is descriptive.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. It implies it is for viewing registry status but does not contrast it with similar read-only tools or the related 'launch_ready_field_agents_to_registries' action.

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