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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it defines what 'operational' means, distinguishes it from 'online', explains the meaning of null, and states that the tool never proxies skill calls. It omits ranking criteria and any rate-limit or auth context, 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?

The description is dense but purposeful; every clause adds information about what the tool returns, how to interpret operational status, or how it differs from call_agent. It could be split into cleaner sentences, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity it explains.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the return fields, the key behavioral nuance (operational vs online vs null), the filter option, and the follow-up action (call_agent). This is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

All three parameters already have detailed schema descriptions, including the strict meaning of operational_only. The description adds some useful framing around the operational field, but it mostly reinforces rather than expands on the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search the MeshKore Oracle for agents') and lists the exact return fields (id, name, skills, declared price, operational). It also explicitly contrasts this tool with call_agent, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It gives direct guidance on when to use the operational_only filter and explains the router-not-broker standard, explicitly telling the agent to use call_agent for actual invocation. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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