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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: that searching costs nothing and needs no key, while invoking a returned agent does require one — an important distinction for planning an agent's workflow.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the auth/cost caveat second. Every clause earns its place, including the handle__slug format hint for interpreting results.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and the key distinction between free search and keyed execution. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Words in the name'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no extra query syntax, matching behavior, or empty-result guidance, 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') and even summarizes the return payload (name, price, page, tool name). It is trivially distinguishable from the SVG-focused siblings, which share no overlap with agent discovery.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the free/no-key note suggests using this for discovery, and the mention that running an agent needs a key hints at a separate execution path. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are named, but there is no sibling search tool that could be confused with it.

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