List registered agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real facts beyond that: results are public and each entry carries proof signatures, which matters for downstream verification. It stops short of saying whether the list is complete or paginated, which is the main behavioral unknown for a list tool with no parameters and no output schema.

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?

It is a single short clause with no filler, but it reads as a truncated caption rather than a front-loaded description, and the key qualifier ('Public') is buried in the middle of a noun phrase.

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, zero-parameter list tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description is the only source of return-value information and it says nothing about result shape beyond 'proof signatures', nor about whether the list is exhaustive or bounded.

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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims in the description conflict with the empty schema.

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 fragment 'Public list of agent wallets linked to an X handle' identifies the resource and its scope, so an agent can infer the verb (list) and content. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a statement of action, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as read_agent_room or list_chains beyond the noun 'agent wallets'.

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 on when to call this versus read_agent_room or the other list/prepare tools, and no stated preconditions. The word 'Public' hints at unauthenticated access but is not framed as a usage condition.

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