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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the risk-filtering scope (high and critical risk agents), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors like whether results are sorted, paginated, or how 'high risk' is determined, but given annotations the bar is lower.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. The 'Agent Sprawl Radar' prefix is slightly decorative but not harmful. Overall, it is efficient with no redundant filler, though the metaphor could be omitted without losing meaning.

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 tool with a simple optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'high risk' means, how the limit affects results, or what the return structure looks like. Given the low complexity, more detail was expected.

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?

The input schema has a single optional 'limit' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its purpose and behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'high and critical risk agents', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents (which likely lists all agents) and get_agent (single agent). The phrase 'Agent Sprawl Radar' adds context but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 provides only a vague context ('for review') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_agents, score_agent, or explain_agent_risk. There are no noted exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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