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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations cannot: the required 'agents:manage' scope, which is genuinely actionable. It says nothing about pagination or result size, which is a gap for a list operation.

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 with no waste, and the scope requirement is stated up front rather than buried. The first sentence borders on restating the name, but it adds the scoping detail 'account's'.

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?

The tool is simple and annotation-covered, but with no output schema the description never hints at the return shape (agent fields, ordering, pagination). An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 account's agents'), which is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_agent and revoke_agent. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the enumeration intent is unambiguous.

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 only implied by the verb 'List' – there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_tasks/list_workspaces or when it is unnecessary. The required scope is a prerequisite, not usage guidance, though it is helpful context.

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