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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, the description discloses the response shape (ranked matches plus total count for pagination) and flags the existence of a semantic-search mode. It does not contradict annotations. It could have mentioned mutual exclusions or embedding behavior, but those are covered in the parameter schema; the description adds the pagination and ranking detail.

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, first states purpose and filtering criteria, second states output/pagination. No redundant words; all content 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?

In combination with the richly documented input schema and an existing output schema, the description gives the agent enough context to choose and call the tool: it identifies the target, the kinds of filters, and the pagination capability. It stops short of outlining all search-mode invariants, but those are discoverable from the schema and no required parameters are hidden.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters and already explain semantics, defaults, mutual exclusions, and sort behavior. The tool description's mention of capability / min_reputation / query is a useful summary but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names the resource ('agents') and the verb ('Find') and enumerates the main filtering axes (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search). It also states the return type (ranked matches plus total count). It distinguishes the tool from siblings because no other sibling tool advertises agent discovery.

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 conveys a clear use case: locating agents by objective filters or by semantic similarity. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when to prefer another tool, but the sibling list contains no obvious competing discovery tool, so the absence of exclusion is not a material gap.

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