AI Agent Registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context that this is a curated, static index ('NOT live per-caller call/citation telemetry') and that agents are 'surfaced as they are integrated,' which prevents misuse as a real-time monitoring tool. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 mostly efficient and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. However, the phrase 'Try: get_agent_registry' is redundant and adds no value, and the note could be slightly tighter. Overall, every other sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and limitations. It clearly sets expectations about the curated nature and explicitly disambiguates from the backup-status tool, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of the parameter space. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a 'curated roster of the AI platforms + agent frameworks' with recommended tools and authentication tiers. It explicitly says 'Use it to see which platforms DC Hub supports and how to connect them,' and it distinguishes itself from get_backup_status by clarifying it is not for uptime/backup health.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use it to see which platforms DC Hub supports') and when not to use ('Do NOT use for platform uptime / backup health'), with a named alternative (get_backup_status). This clearly separates this tool from siblings.

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