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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds genuine context annotations cannot carry: the listing is scoped to the caller's own agents, and the call is tier-gated ('sp500+ (sample rejected)'), which tells the agent to expect an entitlement failure. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior.

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, front-loaded with scope, then the filter, then the sibling routing. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what comes back; a slightly tighter field list would make it a 5.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, and the description covers scoping, filtering, entitlement tier and sibling routing. Only pagination/ordering behavior across the limit parameter is left implicit, which the schema partly handles.

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%, with the limit bounds (1-50, default 20) and the agent_type enum fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the filter and its two values, adding no format or interaction detail beyond structured data, so baseline 3 applies.

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 caller's own standing agents') plus the exact fields returned and the optional agent_type filter. A reader can immediately distinguish it from get_agent, list_agent_runs and run_agent without opening any 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 routes the agent: use get_agent for full detail on one agent, list_agent_runs for run history, run_agent to fire one now. Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it, so no inference is required.

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