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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the upstream API returns the entire list and the tool imposes a window (limit/offset with next_offset), which is essential for correct iteration, plus it notes the underlying POST /v2/get_all_fleets so the agent is not confused by a write-shaped verb on a read. No mention of rate limits, error behavior, or empty-result handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what comes back, then filtering, then pagination and endpoint. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the returned fields and explaining the status encoding, plus the next_offset continuation convention for a 9-parameter, zero-required listing tool. Response envelope shape and failure modes are not described, so it stops just short of fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by mapping the response 'live status' values (0 available, 1 offline, 2 busy), which resolves an ambiguity the schema leaves open — the status filter parameter only accepts 0/1 while live status is three-valued. The filter summary (name, tags, availability, fleet ids) also orients the agent before consulting parameter docs.

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 agents'), immediately glosses the domain terminology ('Tookan calls them fleets'), and enumerates the fields returned (fleet_id, name, phone, tags, team, live status). This clearly separates it from the singular tookan_get_agent and from tookan_list_teams/tookan_list_customers without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 implies usage by naming the filter dimensions (name, tags, availability, fleet ids) and by explaining the paging window, so an agent can infer this is the browse/enumerate path. However, it never says when to prefer a sibling — e.g. use tookan_get_agent for a single agent or tookan_get_agent_location for positions — and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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