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

Goes well beyond the annotations: deterministic, free with no payment or account, stale listings hidden unless include_stale, ordering rules (name/opening matches first, templated+passing-probe services first for verification needs), and the presence of interpretation, relaxations and next_actions. It does not document return shape or pagination beyond 'up to limit compact matches'.

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?

Purpose and the need/filters mechanism are front-loaded, then output behavior and constraints follow in compact order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; minor redundancy between the need clause and the schema's need description.

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 13-parameter, no-output-schema tool with all-optional inputs, the description explains the main output artifacts (compact matches, next_actions, interpretation, relaxations) and the key filtering behavior. It leaves some filter parameters (network, source, agent_id) to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: how fixed rules turn connection, payment, price and task words into filters, that interpretation shows which, and what relaxations reports. It also clarifies the include_stale and limit defaults from the tool's perspective.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — finds services on the Agent Discovery Board — and scopes it to a need expressed in plain words or filters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_listings, which is the one plausible alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives useful operating context (put the need in plain words and/or use filters, omit trace_id on the first call and reuse it to continue a conversation), which implies usage. But it never states when to pick this over search_listings or list_facets, and there are no exclusions.

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