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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, result limits, or ordering. The only auth context lives in the schema properties (apiKey vs sessionToken), which the description does not reinforce or explain.

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?

A single terse sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; there is little structure beyond the bare statement.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate the auth path (apiKey preferred, guest JWT limited to listing) and how it differs from the public listing sibling. It omits both, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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 67% – apiKey and sessionToken are documented in the schema, while environmentId (the required param) is undocumented but semantically obvious. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 clear verb+resource (list agents) scoped to an environment. However, it gives no differentiation from the sibling veya_public_list_agents, so an agent cannot tell from the description which listing tool is the private/authenticated one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus veya_public_list_agents, veya_public_get_agent, or veya_list_environments. The environment requirement is implicit in the name only.

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