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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses the fixed sort order (text match, census status, 30-day working share, name) and that ranking cannot be bought, which is real transparency about result ordering. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, auth, or rate limits, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The ranking sentence earns its place because ordering is non-obvious, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description would need to explain the status enum values, what 'limit' controls, and roughly what a result row contains. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for a three-parameter search tool.

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 0% for three parameters, and the description only implicitly covers 'q' as 'keyword'. The eight-value status enum (working, protocol_only, auth_required, rate_limited, alive_not_mcp, gone, down, error) is never explained, and 'limit' is unmentioned entirely. Worse, 'Find working agents' implies a working-only scope while the enum admits gone/down/error, which could mislead an agent about what status does.

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 working agents and tools by keyword') plus the data source ('latest daily census'), so the agent knows exactly what this searches. It does not name the sibling tools (agentrecord_census, agentrecord_lookup) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'by keyword' implies a search-style query, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over agentrecord_lookup or agentrecord_census, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but never stated.

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