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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the scope is a multi-user account and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result size limits, or authentication requirements — notable gaps for an open-world list call.

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 short sentences with the resource and return payload front-loaded and the endpoint tucked at the end as reference. Nearly every clause earns its place, though 'GET /clients/agents' is redundant for tool selection.

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 does useful work by naming the returned fields, and it gestures at both filtering modes. Missing are pagination/result-count behavior and any indication that all six parameters are optional, which matters for an agent deciding whether a bare call is valid.

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 the schema already documents fields, interval, date_type, filter_field, filter_value and start_datetime in detail. The one added bit of meaning is the pairing constraint between filter_field/filter_value and the interval window, which the schema does not state explicitly; that keeps it at baseline rather than below.

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 ('Agents on a multi-user IDX Broker account') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can tell it lists account agents rather than offices or leads. It never names or contrasts the nearest siblings (idx_list_offices, idx_list_leads), so differentiation is inferred from the resource name alone.

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?

'Filter by one field or by a time window' hints at two mutually exclusive retrieval modes, which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling list tools, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens if filter_field is passed without filter_value.

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