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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that: the GET endpoint, the returned operator fields (id, email, nickname, available), and the account-scoping caveat of excluding sub-accounts. This gives an agent a clear picture of what the operation returns and its boundaries.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct value: what is listed, the API endpoint, the return shape, and scope limitations. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with readOnlyHint and a detailed schema, the description covers return fields and account scope. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the returned attributes. Minor gaps like error behavior are not critical for this simple list operation.

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 both page and params are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('List all operators') and the resource scope ('on the Olark account'), and clarifies the concept ('chat agents'). It also distinguishes itself from the single-operator sibling get_operator by emphasizing the collection-level listing.

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 implies this is the tool for listing the full operator collection, and the scope limitation (no sub-accounts) gives some context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives like get_operator, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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