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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for disclosure. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning that results are ranked and that the total count is returned for pagination, which helps an agent understand what the tool actually produces.

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 compact two-sentence definition with no filler. The key actions and return characteristics are front-loaded, and every sentence provides meaningful information about the tool's behavior.

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 optional parameters, full schema documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description covers the essential purpose and high-level return characteristics, which is sufficient given the rich structured context. It could mention mutual exclusivity or openWorld semantics, but those are already visible in the schema and annotations.

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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description names some of the key parameters (capability, min_reputation, semantic search) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation given full coverage.

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 phrase ('Find agents') and names the key filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. It clearly states the resource being searched and the output includes ranked matches and total count, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like find_paid_work.

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—when you need to discover agents by capability, reputation, or semantic search—but provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance. In a context with many sibling tools (e.g., find_paid_work), the lack of explicit routing makes the guidance only implicit rather than definitive.

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