AI Agent Registry

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, but the description goes further: it discloses that the roster is backend-owned and changes, that statuses are 'CURATED EDITORIAL claims, not measurements', that as_of is null, and that relying on an enumerated list can produce stale results. This is exactly the kind of contextual behavior an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers critical caveats. It is longer than strictly necessary, with emphatic formatting and repeated warnings, but every sentence contributes a distinct behavioral or usage point rather than padding.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essential context: what the response represents, how to interpret statuses, why lists go stale, and which sibling tool to use instead. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation because none is needed, and it instead clarifies the response shape (platforms[] array, status values, as_of null), which is appropriate for a no-input tool.

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: it is a 'curated roster of the AI platforms and agent frameworks' and explicitly answers the question 'which AI platforms can connect to DC Hub'. It also clearly distinguishes itself from telemetry tools by framing itself as a capability index rather than live measurement.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Answers which AI platforms can connect to DC Hub'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Do NOT use for platform uptime or feed health'), and names the alternative tool (get_backup_status). This leaves little to inference.

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