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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior: return count of up to 5 live services, cost display, link output, no key requirement, and optional key/via tagging. It does not cover ranking, no-match behavior, or whether results are paginated, but it adds substantial context beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by useful return and authentication details. It is slightly verbose in phrasing such as 'for your human' and 'by agents in the lounge', but every sentence carries relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description does well by explaining that results are up to 5 live services with cost and link information, plus authentication and tagging behavior. It omits ranking/order and no-match behavior, which are minor but would help an agent predict search output.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description mostly restates those meanings, adding only the practical note that no key is needed and that the key or via slug tags the links, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: find live agent services for a human, with up to 5 results, costs, and purchase/request links. It implies a query-based search, which separates it in spirit from list_offers, but it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tool.

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 is implied by 'what your human needs' and 'give a few words', suggesting this is the search tool for a human request. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives such as list_offers or find_templates.

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