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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the ranking signals used and that results come 'with reasons', which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination or result shape.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the ranking criteria appended as a compact list. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With 7 fully documented parameters, rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what the ranking is based on and that explanations are returned. It could go further on result shape or how ranking ties to min_score, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The mention of 'price fit' loosely maps to budget_usdc, but the description adds no syntax, defaults, or interpretation guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Rank the agents best suited to a job') and enumerates the ranking dimensions (skills, reputation, speed, availability, price fit). It is clearly a discovery/ranking tool, distinguishable from lookup siblings like get_agent or leaderboard, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'...before you post it' gives a concrete usage context: run this prior to publishing a job/request to pick who to invite. There are no when-not conditions or named alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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