list_seo_experts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what is returned (POV summary, tactic counts) and implies read-only listing, but it does not offer deeper context like potential caveats, output limits, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loading the primary purpose and providing a clear call-to-action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return contents (POV summary, tactic counts) and the intended usage (first step). It is complete enough for the agent to understand when and how to call this tool, though it could optionally mention the absence of search/filtering.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 a specific action ('List the SEO experts') and its scope ('available in this corpus'), plus the output details (POV summary, tactic counts). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing this is the discovery tool to call first before querying experts.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this first to see who you can query.' This establishes a clear usage context and ordering relative to siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives directly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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