list_analysts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a "Fast analyst registry metadata lookup," signaling lightweight metadata return rather than full content, but it says nothing about pagination, fields returned, or auth.

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 purpose and usage are front-loaded, but the middle sentence ("unique voice, methodology... cannot be replicated by web search") is promotional filler that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool, and the trailing parenthetical is awkwardly placed after the usage instruction.

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 output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden; "registry metadata lookup" hints at the shape but never specifies what an analyst entry contains. For a zero-required-parameter list tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 100%, so the query, userId, and category semantics (including the enum) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which lands at the 3 baseline.

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+resource ("List available Synthetic Analysts") and adds a disambiguating gloss ("named expert personas grounded in specific knowledge graphs"). However, it describes only synthetic analysts while the sibling annotation title ("List Human Agents, C-Suite & Analysts") and the category enum (human_agent, classic_agent, c_suite_agent) indicate the tool lists broader categories — a scope mismatch that slightly clouds what is actually returned.

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?

Gives a when-to-use trigger ("user asks to 'talk to' or 'consult' an expert, or when you need specialist depth"), but that trigger actually points at consult_analyst/consult_human_agent rather than a listing tool, and no alternative or exclusion is named. The guidance is implied rather than properly routed.

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