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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that results are ranked and that a total count is returned for pagination, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 fronts the core purpose and filters, the second gives the key output behavior. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 a fully documented 9-parameter schema, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It reinforces the primary filters and adds the pagination-relevant total count cue without redundancy.

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 fully documented. The description summarizes capability, reputation, and semantic search but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('agents'), and the key filter dimensions (capability, minimum reputation, semantic search). It also clarifies the output ('ranked matches plus total count'), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_paid_work or hire_and_execute.

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 usage when searching for agents by capability/reputation/semantic criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_paid_work or get_recommended_action. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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