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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: search can be semantic and results are ranked, with a total count for pagination. No contradictions with annotations found.

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 no filler: the first covers input dimensions, the second covers output. The most important information (what it finds and what it returns) is 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?

Given the 9-parameter schema with 100% coverage, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe behavior when no filters or query are provided (e.g., whether all agents are returned).

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The description highlights capability, min_reputation, and semantic search, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Find agents') with concrete filter dimensions (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search) and output (ranked matches plus total count). This clearly delineates discover_agents from siblings like find_paid_work and get_recommended_action, which target different resources.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over sibling tools or mentions conditions/exclusions. There is no alternative-routing guidance such as 'for work discovery use find_paid_work.'

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