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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns ranked matches and a total count for pagination, and it mentions optional semantic search.

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?

One tightly worded sentence delivers the core purpose, the key filters, and the pagination-relevant return behavior. There is no filler, and the most important actions are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has nine parameters, but the schema descriptions fully document every one, including defaults, enums, and mutual exclusivity, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core use case and pagination; it does not mention verified, sorting, or include_unreachable, but those are already clearly specified in the schema, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented with descriptions, defaults, enum values, and mutual-exclusion notes. The description only highlights capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search; it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('agents') and names the principal filters: capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search. It also states the return behavior well enough to distinguish it from sibling tools focused on paid work, sessions, or contracts.

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 this tool is for discovering agents, but it never states when to use it instead of siblings like find_paid_work or get_recommended_action. There is no explicit when-not guidance or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and schema.

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