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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the call is free, results are filtered to probed records by default, unprobed records come back unscored rather than guessed, and unreachable endpoints are excluded. It omits pagination behavior, rate limits, and the result shape, which keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the free/cost fact, then the default-vs-override behavior. No filler and every clause carries operational 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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers filtering semantics well but says nothing about the returned record structure or how limit/offset pagination behaves. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot anticipate the response.

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?

At 64% schema coverage it adds real meaning beyond the schema, most notably for include_unprobed (which has no schema description at all) and for the depth>=2 default that contextualizes min_depth and verified=T3. Several parameters (dir, limit, offset, min_depth) remain unexplained in both places.

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 and resource with the searchable facets enumerated ('Find agents by skill/region/language/price'), which clearly separates it from record-level siblings like get_agent_record or trust_check. It never explicitly names a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for the key branching decision: it defaults to depth>=2 and tells the caller to pass include_unprobed=true for T0/T1 records. It offers no when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as capability_report or find_buyers_for_capability.

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