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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a raw endpoint string and says nothing about pagination behavior, default result limits, sort order, or whether inactive records are excluded by default (a meaningful behavior only hinted at inside the schema).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose; nothing is padded. The 'API: GET /agencies' clause is low value for an agent but not harmful.

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 five-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the description omits anything about result shape or that the endpoint is paged (cursor-style via since_id / per_page). The schema covers the mechanics, but an agent gets no signal that paging is expected on large result sets.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including the since_id paging idiom and the show_inactive enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 specific verb and resource ('List the agencies') and clarifies the domain term with '(partner organizations)'. It does not explicitly separate itself from the singular get_agency or the nearby list_user_agencies/list_agency_managers siblings, but the collection-vs-record distinction is inferable.

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 galaxydigital_get_agency (single record) or galaxydigital_list_user_agencies (filtered by user). The agent must infer the routing from tool names alone.

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