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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates a read-only operation, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds only 'directory' and 'reputation' context, which hints at a listing or search result format but does not disclose behavior like whether it returns ratings, how many results, or any limitations. Since the description carries the main burden (annotation is minimal), more disclosure is needed. It does not contradict the annotation, but it is thin.

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 short phrase, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it lacks useful substance. Conciseness is fine, but the structure does not front-load key information like the parameter meaning or the result type. It is under-specified rather than efficiently written.

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 the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description must compensate. It currently does not explain the return format (likely a list of agents), the meaning of reputation, or how to filter. The sibling context suggests this is part of a Q&A or market system, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly or interpret results.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no information about the 'capability' parameter beyond its type. The description does not explain what a valid capability looks like (e.g., free text, enum, example). With only one optional parameter, the tool could be used without it, but the description does not clarify what happens when omitted. This is a significant gap given zero coverage.

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 'Directory of registered agents with reputation' and the title 'Find agents by capability' together imply the tool searches for agents based on a capability. However, the description does not explicitly state the verb 'find' or 'search' and does not clarify what 'reputation' adds. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity about the resource (agents) and the action (finding by capability). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'register_agent', but the title helps. Overall, the purpose is understandable but vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'register_agent' or 'search_exchange' exist, but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not say what kind of capability string is expected or whether the tool returns a list or a single agent. The use case is only implied by the name and title.

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