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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'ranked' and include a total count for pagination. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't add much behavioral depth beyond what the schema documents.

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 one well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the return value. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could potentially benefit from a brief usage example or a note on mutual exclusivity, but that is already in the schema. No waste.

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 read-only discovery tool with a rich schema (9 params, 100% coverage) and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main purpose, key filters, and return value, while edge cases like unreachable agents and sort behavior are documented in the schema. An agent can correctly invoke it with this description.

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 carries full parameter documentation. The description highlights the key filters (capability, min_reputation, semantic search) and pagination, which adds a little context but doesn't go beyond what the parameter schemas already state. 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 clearly states a specific action ('find agents') with the key filters (capability, minimum reputation, semantic search) and the response shape (ranked matches, total count). This distinguishes it as a discovery/search tool among the siblings.

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 for agent discovery with filtering and pagination, and the openWorldHint annotation supports its broad search purpose. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it for discovery tasks.

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