list_available_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'active' scoping filter, which is useful behavioral context, but the field list (skills, price, reputation) is redundant with the output schema and no pagination or result-size behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating scope, resource and contents in one pass.

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-parameter enumeration tool with an output schema, the description covers scope ('active', 'on the marketplace') and contents adequately. The only real gap is the absence of any signal about result size, pagination, or how it relates to the search sibling.

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 and the schema is trivially complete, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies since nothing is missing or ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all active provider agents registered on the marketplace') and names the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_marketplace_agents, leaving the list-vs-search distinction to inference from the word 'all'.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List all active' suggests this is the unfiltered enumeration path, contrasting implicitly with search_marketplace_agents, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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