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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's addition of 'Returns ranked matches plus the total count for pagination' adds behavioral value without redundancy. It also implicitly signals that results are ranked, which is useful for an agent deciding whether this satisfies a search need.

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 fluff: the first tells the agent what the tool finds, the second tells what it returns. The action and scope are front-loaded, and 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?

Given an output schema is present, all 9 parameters are documented in the input schema, and annotations declare the safety profile, the description covers the remaining essential information: result ranking and pagination support. Nothing an agent needs to choose or call this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description highlights capability and min_reputation as the primary filtering semantics, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add information beyond it. 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 opens with the specific verb 'Find' and names the resource 'agents', then specifies filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. This clearly distinguishes it as an agent-discovery read operation 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 gives clear context for when to call: when discovering agents by capability/reputation/semantic criteria. It doesn't explicitly name exclusions or alternatives like find_paid_work, but the scoped action makes the use case unambiguous. No misleading guidance is present.

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