get_agents_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of pagination behavior, default page size, or that agents shared with you are included by default, which matters for a list endpoint with 9 optional filters.

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 words are not concise, they are under-specified. Brevity here removes information rather than eliminating waste; a caller cannot act on the description alone.

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 9-parameter, zero-required list endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least touch on default result size, pagination via cursor, and default inclusion of shared agents. Annotations cover safety but not retrieval semantics, leaving the agent with the schema alone.

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%, and the schema itself documents each filter, including the '@me' shortcut and the deprecation of show_only_owned_agents. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"List Agents" states a verb and a resource, so the core operation is identifiable. However it gives no scope information (all vs. filtered, owned vs. shared, paginated) and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like get_agent_summaries_route or get_tool_dependent_agents_route, despite the tool's rich filter set.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent agent-retrieval tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of the archived/ownership filters that would shape a caller's choice.

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