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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are ranked and includes a total count for pagination, which is useful but modest. It omits deeper behavioral nuances like the default exclusion of unreachable agents or sort_by being ignored for embedding queries, though those are covered in the schema.

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 core operation front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase earns its place by conveying the search dimensions and the pagination-relevant return behavior. This is an efficient, well-structured definition.

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 strong annotations and a fully self-describing 9-parameter schema plus an output schema, the short description is sufficient as a high-level summary. It doesn't need to repeat return values or parameter details. The only meaningful omission is explicit sibling routing, which is more of a usage-guidelines concern.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of capability, reputation, and semantic search echoes the schema without adding new format, constraint, or interaction details. It adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find agents') and lists the main filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like find_paid_work or hire_and_execute, which target different resources or actions.

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 implies its use case: discovering agents by capability, reputation, or semantic similarity. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or how it relates to downstream actions like hire_and_execute. This is adequate but not explicit routing guidance.

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