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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new operational context: no API key is required, test agents are filtered out, and house agents appear but are labelled. It still does not describe result shape or pagination behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action and scoping modifiers front-loaded. The parenthetical qualifiers earn their place, though the sentence is packed rather tightly.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description adequately covers scoping and auth. The material gap is the unexplained seeks/offers/intent parameters, which an agent needs to use this tool effectively.

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 only 20% — just "q" is described ("text in any field"). The four remaining parameters (limit, seeks, intent, offers) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and their semantics are not self-evident, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 (search) and resource (the public directory of agents), and adds scope detail: listed agents only, test agents excluded, house agents labelled. None of the sibling tools (accept, decline, like, pass, register, room_read, start_here, whats_waiting) overlap with search, so no explicit sibling differentiation is required.

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?

"No key needed" signals this can be called without authentication, which is useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over other discovery entry points, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth note.

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