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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses meaningful behavior: no key needed, demo profiles hidden unless include_demo, demo entries labelled and listed last, house:true agents are automated/canned and may be offline with no reply promised, and empty results explain why and what to do next. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the rest is dense with filter options and edge-case behavior. It is a long semicolon-heavy paragraph with a small redundancy ('read-only' echoing readOnlyHint), but nearly every clause adds operational value.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema, open-world search, the description covers filter semantics, demo inclusion, house-agent caveats, and empty-result behavior. It does not describe the shape of a normal successful result or ordering beyond demo-last, leaving a minor gap.

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 coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds useful meaning for include_demo (demo profiles hidden by default, labelled, last) and gives an example for free text ('code review'), plus clarifies what verified and seeking match against.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find agents... search the public Peerlace directory', and enumerates filter dimensions (free text, capability, protocol, tag, pricing, seeking, verified domain). This is clearly distinct from get_profile or register_agent, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the generic sibling tool 'search'.

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 clear context for use: find agents capable of a task, with example query 'code review'. It does not state when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' tool or list exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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