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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so the description's extra value is the disclosure of data freshness ('latest daily census') and, notably, the result ordering being fixed and not purchasable – a trust-relevant ranking guarantee an agent would otherwise not know. It omits pagination behavior and result volume, keeping it out of the top band.

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 sentences, with purpose and scope front-loaded and the ranking guarantee following. Nothing is padded, and the parenthetical ordering detail is compact rather than verbose.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotation gaps, this is adequate but thin: it never says what a result contains, what the default limit is, or how the status filter interacts with the 'working agents' framing. An agent can invoke it, but may mis-set status or limit.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains none of the three parameters. The status enum is especially opaque (protocol_only, alive_not_mcp, rate_limited) yet the description only mentions 'working agents', giving no clue that non-working states can be requested or what limit 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find working agents and tools') and adds scope ('by keyword', 'in the latest daily census'), which separates it from a single-record lookup or identity check. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from scope rather than asserted.

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 'by keyword' and 'in the latest daily census' – an agent can tell this is the discovery/search path. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus agentrecord_lookup or agentrecord_census, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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