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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two traits: 'ranked by verification-backed trust' and 'Free', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, how results are paginated, or any potential side effects. For a search tool this is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each contributing value. It efficiently communicates the core function and a key differentiator ('Free') without redundancy.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify expected result format, filter semantics, trust thresholds, or how this relates to sibling tools. Users are left with significant uncertainty about how to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema provides three parameters (query, category, min_trust) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain any of these parameters, their formats, allowed values, or how they influence the search. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 the tool's function: 'Search the Aegis registry of agent-payable services, ranked by verification-backed trust.' This provides a specific verb (Search), resource (Aegis registry), and distinct method (ranked by trust). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'smart_discover', which likely surfaces similar registry data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smart_discover' or 'trust_check'. The only contextual hint is 'Free', which implies a cost benefit but does not clarify selection criteria, necessary conditions, or exclusions.

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