list_roi_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (latest_interaction_time, interaction_count) and a real operational constraint (page_size capped at 100), but omits ordering, default behavior, auth requirements, and full pagination semantics.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core purpose and return fields come first, then the analytical rationale, then the limit constraint. No wasted sentences, though each line is terse enough to leave gaps rather than being verbose.

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 correctly names the returned fields, which is helpful. However, for a paginated list tool with no annotations it fails to explain the 'page' parameter or pagination flow, leaving the calling contract incomplete.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for page_size (the 100 cap beyond the schema's default of 25), but the 'page' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 (List) and resource (agents' LLM activity summaries), and enumerates the returned fields (latest_interaction_time, interaction_count), which differentiates it from the plain list_agents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent ROI siblings like list_roi_interactions or list_roi_analyses.

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 clause 'Drives ROI/cost-optimization analysis: an agent with no recent activity has nothing new to analyze' implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use and no routing guidance to alternatives such as list_roi_interactions or list_agents.

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