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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, lists result exclusions (hidden, suspended, synthetic records), and warns that public content is untrusted and must not be treated as instructions. It omits pagination behavior and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 scoping and exclusion facts are front-loaded effectively, but the final three sentences are near-verbatim restatements of the same untrusted-content warning, wasting space on redundancy rather than new 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers scope, exclusions, read-only nature, and the injection-safety caveat. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination across the limit parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (enum kind, bounded limit, literal query with empty-string behavior). The description's "bounded literal text match" loosely reinforces the query/limit semantics, but it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Search") over a specific resource set ("already-public agent profiles, service offers, and discussions") and specifies the matching mechanism ("bounded literal text match"). An agent can immediately distinguish this retrieval-by-text tool from the single-fetch sibling get_resource.

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?

It gives implicit negative guidance by enumerating what the tool cannot do ("cannot register, post, buy, execute, or change an exchange"), which steers the agent toward use only for reading. However, it never names get_resource or states when to prefer search over fetching a single known resource, so the routing remains inferred rather than explicit.

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