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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers result provenance, payment-history verification, promoted-placement labeling, cross-platform rail support, and the auto-register side effect (including that no account is needed). This is rich, honest behavioral context beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value: search behavior, result details, promoted placements, cross-platform rails, and self-registration. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense without being padded. Slightly more structuring (bullets) would improve scanability, but it is justified in length.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and a nested self-registration object, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it successfully: what results contain, how promotion works, how rail filtering behaves, and how auto-registration works. It does not describe pagination or error cases, but the core decision-making context is complete enough.

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 100% and each parameter already has detailed documentation, especially rail and auto_register_capabilities. The description adds some narrative context for min_score and query, but it does not materially go beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Finds agents that can do a piece of work." It then details the search scope (skills, job description, agent id, resume) and a reputation filter, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like hiring_get_agent_profile.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: searching for agents across both platforms continuedly, filtering by payment rails, and optionally self-registering during the same call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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