list_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds a genuine payload guarantee beyond them ('Does not expose secrets or emails') that tells the agent the output is safe to relay. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, fields, and consumer tool in one compact statement, and the privacy note is short. The fully duplicated Chinese sentence is redundant for a single-language consumer and is the only real waste.

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 and no parameters, the description supplies the return fields and a data-sensitivity guarantee, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only minor operational detail such as whether the list is paginated or sorted.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field list it provides describes output, which the schema does not cover.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List this merchant's agents/seats') with an explicit inventory of returned fields (id, displayName, isActive/isAvailable) and the downstream consumer (assign_conversation). No other sibling lists agents, so the resource is unambiguous against list_stores, list_conversations, etc.

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?

'...for assign_conversation' gives a clear retrieval-then-assign workflow context, which is exactly how an agent would select this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming any alternative, but no plausible alternative exists in the sibling set.

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