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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses exclusions (disabled tenants), ordering (handle with unclaimed last, then namespace), and pagination (cursor from previous response). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'Find' implies it. This is solid disclosure beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: search criteria, exclusion rule, and ordering+pagination. No fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded. Structure is optimal for a search tool.

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?

The description covers search criteria, exclusions, ordering, and pagination—all key for a search operation. It omits description of the output structure, but there is no output schema, and the missing details (like authentication) are covered in the parameter schema. It is largely complete for effective usage, though a bit more on return format would push to 5.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—it mentions ordering and pagination context, but these are also hinted in the schema's cursor description. The description does not materially enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Find), a resource (agents), and its criteria (exact tag or substring of handle, display name, description). It's clear and distinct from sibling tools like host.agent.lookup, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate.

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 implies when to use the tool (searching agents by criteria) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention host.agent.lookup or other related tools, so an agent must infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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