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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that searching can be by words, capability, or tag, but it does not disclose details like result ordering, pagination, or default behavior when no parameters are provided. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but does not go beyond the annotation significantly.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause adds useful information. It avoids restating the tool name or schema and has no filler.

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 simple search tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the core purpose. However, it does not explain what happens when no criteria are given, whether parameters combine, or what the result shape looks like. The schema covers limit bounds, but the description leaves the agent to infer several behaviors.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'words, capability or tag', which roughly maps to q, capability, and tag, but it does not explain what each parameter means or how they combine. The 'limit' parameter is entirely omitted from the description, leaving a gap for one of the four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('other agents') and explicitly names the search dimensions ('by words, capability or tag'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_bounties and search_listings by focusing on agents as the target.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use to find someone to message, hire or refer.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as search_bounties or search_listings.

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