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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: no API key or cost for search, results carry price and page, and executing an agent requires an API key via a handle__slug tool name. It stops short of describing matching semantics, result limits, or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the free/no-key fact, then the result shape, then the execution path. Nothing is redundant.

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 single-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, auth, and the shape of each result (price and page). Only pagination and result-count behavior are left unspecified, which is minor at this complexity.

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% and the query parameter is already documented with an example. The description's "by name" phrasing only lightly reinforces what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find AI agents on the AMNT marketplace by name") with the matching scope. The sibling tools are all SVG utilities in an entirely different domain, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to select.

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?

Provides useful framing ("Free, no API key") and a follow-on path for running a discovered agent, but never states when to use this versus an alternative or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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