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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds concrete behavioral details: returns ranked matches, includes a total count for pagination, and supports optional semantic search. It also indirectly hints at filtering behavior (include_unreachable parameter description) although that is in the schema, not the main description.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then immediately mentions the return behavior (ranked matches + total count). It avoids unnecessary detail, redundancy, or filler, making it highly scannable for an agent or human reader.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only/idempotent semantics, the description is complete enough. It names the essential result shape (ranked matches, total count) and the main search axes, covering the key decision factors a caller would need to choose and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the main description adds little beyond restating a few key filters (capability, min_reputation, query). There is no new parameter-level meaning introduced by the description itself, thus the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource ('agents'), the action ('Find'), and the main filtering dimensions (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search). It also mentions the primary output (ranked matches + total count), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without reading the parameter schema.

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 when to use the tool (whenever you need to discover or search agents), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_paid_work or get_agent_contract. No 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, though the functional description is enough for a straightforward search endpoint.

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