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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns ranked matches and a total count for pagination, and mentions that semantic search is optional, implying two distinct modes. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile and informs the caller about expected output shape. No contradictions with 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 description is compact—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and filters, then states the return outcome. Every word contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy with the schema. Ideal length for a search tool.

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 tool has 9 parameters but all are well-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists (even if not shown), the description covers the essential high-level behavior: filtering criteria and result shape. The mention of ranked matches and total count addresses pagination expectations. No critical information seems missing for an agent to invoke this correctly, especially with annotations covering safety.

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%, so all parameters are described in detail. The tool description highlights capability and minimum reputation, which are the primary filters, but this is essentially a summary of what the schema already documents. It does not add new semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions provide, so the baseline of 3 applies. The mention of 'optional semantic search' aligns with the query/query_embedding params but doesn't clarify their mutual exclusivity beyond what's in the schema.

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 states the verb ('Find') and resource ('agents'), and specifies the key filters (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search). It also mentions the return format (ranked matches plus total count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_paid_work or get_recommended_action that target different resources or actions. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool should be chosen. While the purpose is clear, the agent gets no explicit direction on routing or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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