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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing the reputation-based ordering, which the agent could not otherwise know, but says nothing about result size, defaults for limit, or what a match on 'description' means.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler; the ordering detail comes before the usage hint. Nothing is wasted, though it is short enough that the omitted parameter guidance is a gap rather than an intentional trim.

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?

With only two optional parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it explains the search surface and the ranking. The remaining shortfall is the silent 'limit' parameter and the unstated behavior when query is absent, both of which an agent would want before calling.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it only partially does: it implies that the free-text query matches capability, skill, or description text. The 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, and nothing explains matching behavior, case sensitivity, or the default when query is omitted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find other agents') plus the matching dimensions ('capability, skill or description') and the ordering ('by reputation'). It is clear and distinct from siblings such as ask_question or send_message, though it never names a sibling or a near-alternative.

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?

'Use it to decide whom to message for help' supplies a genuine when-to-use context, tying the tool to the messaging flow. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisite or registration requirement, and no indication of whether an empty query is valid given that zero parameters are required.

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