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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — the request is public, moderated, always starts OPEN, free with no payment, and returns a new request id. It stops short of describing what moderation failure looks like or reversibility, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then constraints, then return/usage. Every sentence carries information, though it runs several sentences and could tighten slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed; the description still notes the returned request id. Public visibility, moderation, initial state, cost, and the routing trigger are all covered — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 in the schema. The description restates the same constraints (title 5–120 chars, body ≤2000) with only a minor added nuance ('tools to connect, what a good result looks like' mirrors the schema), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (post/create an agent request on the PUBLIC FindAgent demand board) and clearly frames it as 'I want an agent that does X', distinguishing it from browse/search and other create_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative moments to use it: 'A search that found nothing (findagent_browse_agents or findagent_skill_search with no match) is a good moment to offer this.' This ties the tool to a concrete trigger condition relative to named siblings.

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