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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: results are returned in address order, pagination is offset-based, and 'Fit is reference data, not a market ranking' warns against misreading the scoring. It omits page-size defaults/caps, whether the listing is exhaustive, and any auth or rate considerations.

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 short sentences with the output shape front-loaded and the caveat ('not a market ranking') placed where it will be read. Dense and waste-free, though the fragmentary grammar costs some clarity.

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?

This is a five-parameter filter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain both filtering and return shape. It covers the return shape and ordering, but filter semantics and the pagination parameter name are left unresolved, which is a real gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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% across five filter parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: skill, capability, taskId, limit and offset are never explained. Worse, it instructs 'Page using nextOffset', a name that does not exist in the input schema (which exposes 'offset' and 'limit'), which can send an agent looking for a nonexistent field instead of documenting the real ones.

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 conveys the resource (agent candidates) and what comes back with them (capability records, prices, time), and it distinguishes the result from a ranking ('not a market ranking'). However, it is written as a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a filtered listing/lookup operation rather than a comparison or profile fetch. Siblings compare_agents and agent_profile are never named, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

'Page using nextOffset; choose suppliers with your own costs and criteria' gives operational guidance on how to consume results and makes clear the tool does not make selection decisions. It still never states when to use this versus explore_performance, compare_agents, or explore_history, so the usage context is only implied by the procurement framing.

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