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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — results are ranked and a total count is returned for pagination — which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations, but the description doesn't disclose deeper behaviors like how semantic search is handled server-side (the schema covers that per-parameter).

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 with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, the key filters follow immediately, and the return behavior closes the description. Every clause earns its place.

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 0 required parameters, 100% schema coverage on a 9-parameter schema, a rich output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, the main filtering axes, and the pagination signal. Nuances like query/query_embedding mutual exclusivity and sort_by being ignored are already documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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 all 9 parameters documented individually, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the three headline filters (capability, min_reputation, semantic search) and the pagination behavior, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It correctly does not repeat schema details.

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 ('Find') with a clear resource (agents) and names the key filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search. The detail is sufficient to distinguish it from siblings like find_paid_work or hire_and_execute, which target work/tasks rather than agent discovery. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or states what it is not, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 usage context — this is the tool for searching/discovering agents with filters and pagination support ('total count for pagination'). But it provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent can infer intent from sibling names, but the description itself leaves routing logic unstated.

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