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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the fixed page size of 24 and the exact card fields returned, which tells the agent what a result set contains. No rate limits or pagination-end behavior mentioned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or annotations.

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 simple 3-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, nothing material is missing. Return values are additionally sketched, and the sibling handoff is clear.

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% and each parameter has an enum or description, so the baseline is 3. The description earns one extra point by explaining the pagination granularity ('24 a page'), which gives meaning to the page parameter beyond 'Page number, from 1'.

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 ('Search the public Prompeteer Agents catalogue') plus the scope of results (one page of 24 agent cards with named fields). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agent, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_agent for an agent's jobs, helpers and skills') and gives the omission rule ('Omit to list in the catalogue order'). What's missing is an explicit when-not condition, e.g. that this cannot retrieve an individual agent's detail.

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