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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It adds that matches are ranked and that a total count is returned for pagination, and it signals optional semantic search, all without contradicting the annotations.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that states the core verb, resource, and filters, then adds the two result details that matter for pagination. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 a 100%-documented input schema, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is sufficient for a read-only discovery tool. It could be more self-contained by naming intended alternatives or highlighting the open-world/unreachable-filter behavior, but the structured fields cover those details.

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 input schema fully documents all nine optional parameters. The description mentions capability and minimum reputation but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 key selection criteria (capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search), so an agent understands the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like find_paid_work or get_recommended_action, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer discover_agents over alternatives such as find_paid_work, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The return-format hint about ranked matches and total count is useful, but it does not help an agent decide among related discovery/hiring tools.

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