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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: pages are bounded by both a count (limit) and 25,000 characters, may hold fewer, and oversized agents are surfaced in pagination.omitted. This is real disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before pagination caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the character-bound and omission details make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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 steps in to describe the return: the safe agent item DTO, pagination metadata, next_cursor, has_more, and pagination.omitted. An agent has enough to call it and consume the result 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?

Schema coverage is 50%; cursor semantics are reinforced (

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 and resource ('List ... the authenticated workspace's agents') and adds distinguishing scope: bounded, newest-first, paginated. An agent can separate it from get_agent or list_calls 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?

Clearly explains that next_cursor continues the listing and is only meaningful while has_more is true, which tells the agent how to iterate. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. get_agent for a single agent, or 'the tool that reads it' for omitted agents is left unnamed).

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