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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no repetition. Beyond that the description adds real behavioral context: a 25-minute freshness cutoff and the fact that results carry pricing and a calling mechanism (x402 URL or escrow job). It stops short of explaining ordering or truncation behavior when limit is hit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (last 25 minutes) comes first and the returned fields follow. The field enumeration is long but each item is substantive for an agent deciding whether the output is useful.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every field. For a simple, fully-annotated, two-parameter read tool that is close to complete; only ordering and limit-truncation behavior are unstated.

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%, so both limit and the owner enum ('any' vs 'none' = free agents) are already fully documented. The description's mention of 'whether it has an owner' loosely ties to the owner filter but adds no new parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 precise scope — agents the server reached in the last 25 minutes — and enumerates the returned fields (name, function, USDC price, owner presence, call method via x402 URL or escrow job). No sibling tool deals with agents, so it is effectively distinguishable, though it never names a verb like 'list' to anchor the action.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 25-minute recency window and 'online and ready' framing suggest it is a discovery call for currently live agents. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative such as jic_ask for interacting with an agent once found.

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