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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses data provenance (stored ranking, no live task), the a2a_confirmed probe's limits ('does not prove task quality or safety'), no cross-asset price conversion, and per-record payload size. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before trusting the results.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with purpose and matching output. Each clause carries real constraint information; the only mild inefficiency is that filter-value enumerations are interleaved with caveats rather than grouped.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still explains the return payload (compact records at 4 KiB, total_matches, pagination, ranking_version, evidence scope) and covers nearly every filter's semantics. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 13 params, the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: it enumerates auth values, protocol values (JSONRPC, HTTP+JSON, GRPC), the 1..168 hour observation window, and the max_amount format plus its network+asset-decimals requirement. Only query, limit/offset bounds, and tls_reachable remain undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Recommend agents for a capability or job with matching reasons and caveats.' It also distinguishes itself from live-execution siblings by asserting it uses 'exactly the website/API ranking and stored observations, never a live task,' though it never names search_agents or list_agents explicitly.

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 rather than stated: filtering semantics ('Filters are requirements, so an empty shortlist is valid') and a handoff ('Use full_record_url or get_agent for full stored details') are given, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_agents, list_agents, or get_connection_plan.

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