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 valuable behavioral context beyond that: the result is scoped to the caller's own standing agents, the tier gate is disclosed, and the optional agent_type filter is a behavioral knob. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler: the returned scope and fields are front-loaded, then the filter, then sibling routing, then the tier gate. Every sentence earns its place and no information is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers scope ('caller's own standing agents'), the optional filter, sibling routing, and the tier restriction, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both limit (1-50, default 20) and agent_type (enum) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the agent_type filter ('optional filter by agent_type') only restates schema information and adds no new syntax, formatting, or edge-case meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the caller's own standing agents') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, goal, tickers, agent_type, trigger config, schedule, enabled state, last/next run), which is concrete and unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from nearby siblings by explicitly naming get_agent, list_agent_runs, and run_agent as the tools for other purposes.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use get_agent for one agent's full detail, list_agent_runs for run history, or run_agent to fire one now,' which tells an agent when not to use this tool. It also conveys a qualification constraint ('Tier: sp500+ (sample rejected)') that an agent needs before calling.

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