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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing ranking behavior ('ranked matches') and the pagination-relevant total count return. No behavioral contradiction exists with 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and primary filters, and the second adds the return-shape information needed for pagination. Every clause 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?

For a 9-parameter read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, the main filters, and the return characteristics. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify how 'ranked' relates to sort_by versus semantic similarity, but the schema already explains that, so the description is complete enough.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the mutual exclusivity of query/query_embedding and the sort_by behavior. The description adds only marginal value by flagging capability, min_reputation, and semantic search as the primary dimensions, which is mild reinforcement rather than genuinely new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find'), a concrete resource ('agents'), and the key filtering dimensions (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search). It also states the return shape (ranked matches plus total count), which helps the agent understand what the result will look like. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_paid_work, which targets work opportunities rather than agents.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose statement — an agent can infer this is the tool for searching/discovering agents by filters. However, the description names no alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to sibling tools like find_paid_work or get_recommended_action. It stops at describing what it does without routing guidance.

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