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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data the list contains (status, defaults/disabled state, latest work summary), going beyond the minimal 'list' expectation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the core action immediately and lists the output details efficiently.

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 operation with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the response content. It lacks mention of pagination or sorting, but these are unlikely to be needed for a catalog listing, making it reasonably 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 0% (no descriptions in the schema) and the description does not mention the optional request_id parameter at all. Since the parameter is optional, the agent could omit it, but the description fails to explain its purpose or whether it's needed for tracing or filtering, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('built-in-agent catalog') and names three concrete output elements (current status, defaults/disabled state, latest work summary). This clearly distinguishes it from read (single agent) and mutation tools like configure/enable.

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 its use for getting an overview of all built-in agents, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like yardstick_built_in_agents_read for a single agent. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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