List ledger agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about the backing ledger and the fields returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or how limit interacts with the result set.

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?

One tight sentence plus a short filtering note; the action and data scope are front-loaded and nothing is redundant. The parenthetical return-field list earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields is a good compensation. However, the absence of any pagination or result-limit semantics and the unaddressed onlineOnly filter leave the agent guessing about defaults and scope.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only accounts for two of the four parameters (platform, operator). 'limit' and 'onlineOnly' — the latter a meaningful behavioral filter — are never explained in either the schema or the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List agents on the SCDO Agent Ledger') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. The list-versus-single distinction from the sibling ledger_get_agent is implicit rather than spelled out, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentence 'Filter by platform or operator address' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative (ledger_get_agent, ledger_stats). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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