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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important operational context beyond them: the tool requires the Agents API add-on, demo credentials return an empty list, and it maps to GET /agents. This is meaningful, though it does not cover pagination behavior or response format.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a prerequisite and endpoint. The content is efficient, though the trailing 'GET /agents' is slightly redundant and could be trimmed.

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 listing tool with no output schema and six optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description supplies crucial setup context (add-on requirement, demo behavior) and enumerates return fields. It is nearly complete, but could mention pagination hints or filtering behavior.

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 the description does not discuss any of the six parameters (q, name, limit, state, offset, vendor). With the schema fully documenting each parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the resource as the MLS agent roster and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, address, contact, office), making its purpose immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like simplyrets_list_offices or explain when to prefer this over other listing endpoints, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Needs the Agents API add-on') and an environmental caveat about demo credentials. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria, so an agent has to infer its use from the name and context alone.

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