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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses concrete operational behavior: a maximum of 25 per page, a 60 reads/minute/client rate limit shared with REST, and specific error-handling semantics for rate_limited, rate_limit_unavailable, and discovery_unavailable. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to invoke the tool safely and retry correctly.

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 dense and front-loaded: it starts with purpose, then scope exclusions, limits, parameter modes, and error behavior. Every sentence carries operational information, with no filler.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the important invocation constraints, rate limits, error cases, and parameter modes. It could say more about the returned record shape or lifecycle projection, but it is largely complete for correct tool use.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description usefully adds meaning for the main usage modes: slug for one record, slug plus format=registration for an export, and the 25-per-page limit. It still leaves the after cursor semantics mostly to the schema, but overall it compensates well for the partial schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource, 'currently public Genuine Agent Records', and a clear discovery action, so the tool's core purpose is easy to identify. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_briefs or get_pricing, though those resources are inherently different.

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?

It gives clear mode-selection guidance: use slug for a single record and slug plus format=registration for an ERC-8004-shaped export. It also states meaningful scope exclusions, such as samples being excluded and no public metrics being available, but does not explicitly name when an alternative sibling tool should be used instead.

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