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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it lists returned candidate fields including role, traits, starting price, and match rationale, and confirms the search is free with no key required. It does not explain pagination behavior for limit/offset.

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, front-loads the core action, and includes only useful details about returned data and access requirements. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned and that no key is needed. However, with seven optional parameters including aliases and pagination controls, it leaves significant gaps around filtering and pagination behavior.

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 71%, with limit and offset lacking descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining query filters, department filtering, max price semantics, or pagination, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Find Roster agents for a task." It clearly identifies candidate discovery, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_agent or hire_agent.

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 phrase "for a task" implies the search use case, and "Free, no key needed" clarifies access requirements. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives such as using get_agent for full details or hire_agent to hire.

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