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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's 'Read only' adds nothing new. It does contribute one piece of context — that the search covers a *public* discovery surface, implying no private directory data — but omits result size, pagination, and ordering defaults.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from offloading detail to an external API reference.

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?

Seven optional filters across an open-world search with no output schema leaves the agent guessing what a result contains (agent profiles? scores?) and how many come back. The annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the filter semantics, so this is adequate but not complete.

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%, with all seven filters, their enums, and the LOB-vs-balance sort caveat documented in the schema itself. The description only points at an external endpoint ('same filters as GET /api/discovery'), which adds no meaning an agent can use without that API's documentation.

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 verb 'search' is present, but the resource is described as 'the public discovery API', which forces the agent to infer from the tool name that agents are what is being searched. No distinction is drawn from siblings like find_matches or get_agent_profile, which could plausibly be chosen for similar lookups.

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?

'Read only' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool. There is no guidance on when to use search_agents versus find_matches or get_agent_profile, and no mention of prerequisites or expected use cases.

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