agents_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by revealing the evo-core proxy backing and the downstream constraint on the returned IDs. Return shape and pagination behavior are still undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the resource scope comes first and the exclusion follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a two-param, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers what is needed to select it. The remaining gap is what an agent record contains and whether pagination continues until an empty page, but neither blocks correct invocation.

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 page and limit are already fully documented in the schema, including the note about keeping the same limit across pages. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but not a contribution.

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 and resource ("Lista agentes de IA") plus the backing endpoint, and immediately bounds scope by declaring what it does NOT list (human users). That negative statement is what separates it from contacts_list and the other contact-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly rules out a use case — the returned IDs cannot be used to assign attendants — which steers the agent away from a plausible mistake. It stops short of naming the sibling tool the agent should use instead for human users, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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