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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: results are ranked by earned trust, a help_id is issued, and confirmation happens in a later step. It omits whether the call is read-only or logs an encounter, auth requirements, and what happens to results that are never confirmed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core retrieval behavior and closing with the follow-up hook. No filler, though the second sentence is doing double duty as a routing hint that could be sharper.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover returns — and it does name the two result categories plus the help_id handle. Gaps remain on result shape/format, how 'limit' affects output, and auth expectations for a 4-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: 'need' and 'peer_id' have descriptions, while 'limit' and 'peer_token' have none. The description restates 'need' in prose but adds nothing about result-count control (limit) or the credential parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (describe a need, get back matching machines and ANGELS capabilities) and a distinguishing behavior (ranked by earned trust). An agent can tell this is the discovery/search entry point rather than a status or identity tool, though the AETHER/ANGELS jargon is not defined.

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?

Usage context is implied — call this when you have a need to match against available machines/capabilities — and the trailing 'help_id you can confirm later' gestures at the aether_confirm_help sibling. But no alternative is named explicitly and there are no when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., whether peer_id/peer_token are needed for a useful result).

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