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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the non-obvious behavior: only public teams are returned, results follow a three-tier default ordering (operated, then reference designs, then illustrative demos), pages cap at 20, and nextCursor must be fed back as cursor. That ordering and page-cap disclosure is exactly the kind of thing structured fields cannot convey, though it stops short of describing rate limits or what an empty result means.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then ordering, then pagination mechanics, then the AND rule — a sensible sequence. The long parenthetical defining reference designs is slightly heavy but earns its place by preventing an agent from mistaking curated entries for running deployments.

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 7-parameter, fully-described, zero-required search tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is searched, what is excluded (non-public), result ordering, page size and cursor protocol, and filter combination logic. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: filters are all optional and are ANDed together, and cursor is the previous page's nextCursor. It also reinforces the layer vocabulary (real/curated/illustrative) in prose terms an agent can reason about when choosing a filter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the public AgentCV registry of AI agent teams') and scopes it to public teams only. The sibling set (get_team, list_platforms, list_use_cases) covers single-record and hub-listing operations, and 'Search ... registry' clearly occupies the discovery slot that none of them fill.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'All filters are optional and combine with AND' plus the cursor instructions tell an agent how to drive the tool, and 'see list_platforms' / 'see list_use_cases' gesture at prerequisites. However, it never says when to reach for this versus get_team (e.g. after obtaining a slug) or when a filter should be preferred over free-text query.

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