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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and names returned fields, but it omits pagination or result-size behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, and other operational constraints that matter for a 'list all' operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by filter support. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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?

The description identifies the returned metadata fields and summarizes the filters, which is adequate for a tool with full schema coverage. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify scale/pagination behavior and explicitly differentiate this from the sibling identity list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter, including defaults and the chain enum. The description only summarizes the filters and notes SDK equivalence, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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: it lists agents and names the returned metadata fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling actora_identity_list, so the 'list_all' scope has to be inferred from the name rather than stated contrast.

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?

It names the supported filters (ID range, active-only, capability), which gives useful usage context. However, it does not say when to choose this over actora_identity_list or actora_identity_get, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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