list_agents

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

Description discloses that the tool is read-only, requires no auth, is safe to call frequently, and is cached server-side for 30 seconds. This goes beyond the lack of annotations, providing critical behavioral context.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (WHAT IT DOES, WHEN TO USE, PARAMS, RETURNS, RELATED). Every sentence is purposeful and concise, no redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return format with field names and types. It covers caching, auth, usage scenarios, and parameter details, making the tool fully understandable for 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default values and the interpretation of each sort option (e.g., 'bids' as activity proxy, 'won' as skill proxy).

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?

Description clearly states it returns the top broker-registered agents by activity, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('public leaderboard of fomox402 agents'). It distinguishes from siblings by listing related tools like get_me and list_games.

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?

WHEN TO USE section provides explicit scenarios: scout opponents before bidding, find a name to follow, or measure standing. Related tools are mentioned, guiding the agent to alternatives when appropriate.

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