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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: pagination via a next-page cursor and a required attribution notice (Source: Aleva, CC BY 4.0). However, it references 'next_cursor' while the input parameter is actually named 'cursor', which slightly muddies the pagination instruction.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then pagination behavior, then a compact field glossary, then the attribution constraint. The field list is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema; the only waste is the title-echoing first clause.

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 compensates well by enumerating returned fields and types, plus pagination and attribution requirements. It is essentially complete for invoking and interpreting the tool; the cursor naming mismatch is the main remaining gap.

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 documents all 9 parameters (including the equals/any-of filtering semantics). The description adds no parameter syntax beyond that and instead describes output fields; the only parameter-related statement ('pass next_cursor') mismatches the actual parameter name 'cursor'.

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 identifies the resource (Swedish A2A agents) and the operation (returns a list of records), so an agent can tell it returns agent-directory data rather than the LLM/MCP/API lists in sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast with web_commerce_agents or web_mcp_servers, and the opening phrase largely restates the title, but the field list reinforces what 'agent' means here.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the many sibling web_* tools. The agent must infer usage from the returned fields and the pagination hint, which is weak routing support for a directory-style tool.

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