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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description only needs incremental value. 'One offset/limit page' is a genuinely useful disclosure about pagination shape, but it says nothing about result ordering defaults, page-full behavior, or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded fragments with no filler; the core purpose and pagination constraint come first. The telegraphic style is efficient, though 'documented sorting' is vague enough to cost a point.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what to call and roughly what it returns. It leaves gaps on return shape and pagination termination that an agent must discover by trial.

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 only 29%, so the description should compensate more. It gestures at all seven parameters by category (name/email search, sorting, offset/limit page) but adds no detail beyond the schema — it doesn't name the sortable fields or explain that offset/limit wrap into a single page window.

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+resource ('List agents') plus the searchable fields and endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_contacts and list_teams by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 implied by the resource and filters, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over another listing tool or when it is not appropriate. The agent must infer the use case.

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