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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that results are ranked and that a total count is provided for pagination. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could add more detail about failure modes or rate limiting.

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 sentences, no fluff, and every clause contributes meaning. The core filtering criteria are front-loaded, and the pagination/ranking detail is placed second, giving the agent the essential information quickly.

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 rich input schema with 100% parameter descriptions and the output schema, the description is complete enough for tool selection. It conveys the discovery intent, key filters, ranking, and pagination awareness without needing to restate schema details. Secondary filters like verified and include_unreachable are adequately covered by the schema.

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%, with detailed descriptions for every parameter including defaults, limits, and the mutual exclusivity of query and query_embedding. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Find agents by...' — a specific verb plus resource — and immediately lists the key filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. It also states the return behavior (ranked matches and total count), so the tool's role is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the benchmark/hiring 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?

The description clearly frames the intended use case: discovering agents by reputation, capability, or semantic similarity. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but none of the sibling tools appear to compete with agent discovery, so the context is sufficient.

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