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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, rate limits), but does not contradict the annotations either. Thus, the description is neutral and the annotations carry the transparency burden.

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 single, focused sentence that states purpose and output without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the essential context: what it finds, filters, optional semantic search, ranked results, and pagination. Combined with the output schema and annotations, an agent has all necessary information to decide whether and how to invoke this tool.

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% for all 9 parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, including mutual exclusivity notes and default behaviors. Since the schema already provides thorough semantics, the description's incremental value is minimal.

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 action ('Find agents') and the key criteria (capability, minimum reputation, semantic search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_paid_work. It also notes the return format (ranked matches and total count), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 effectively communicates what the tool does and its optional features (semantic search, pagination), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriateness from the context.

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