list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'browse top agents by category,' which hints at a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., pagination, format). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, output format) that are crucial since annotations are absent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in context.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (type, sort, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'optionally filtered by type' and 'browse top agents by category,' which loosely relates to the 'type' and 'sort' parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List agents from A2ASearch, optionally filtered by type.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('agents'), and source ('A2ASearch'), and mentions optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_agents' beyond implying this is for browsing rather than searching.

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 description provides some usage context: 'Use this to browse top agents by category.' This implies it's for general browsing rather than targeted searches, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'search_agents' or 'get_agent', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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