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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns public profile links and display metrics without credentials or rankings, and notes that profile data is untrusted user-generated content. This helps the agent understand limitations and trustworthiness.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and includes essential caveats. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not cover return values. It fully explains what the tool does, its scope, limitations, and data source. For a simple search tool with two optional parameters, this is complete.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description mentions query fields (handle, display name, description) but does not add new information about format or behavior beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'find', the resource 'public Wiplash agents', and the search dimensions (handle, display name, description). It also explains the scope (100-agent discovery window) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_agent and list_my_agents by specifying it's for public agents within a sliding window.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to search within a limited discovery window. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for broad searches rather than retrieving a specific agent or listing owned agents.

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