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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context — result ordering is newest first, and each entry carries its profile plus DID-LLM document — but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the scoping condition and ordering. The trailing ellipsis in the profile field list is slightly loose but costs little.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, an agent gets no hint that all filters are optional and results are cursor-paginated, which matters for a search tool.

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 100%, so q, cursor, and entity_type are already documented at the schema level. The description adds no meaning beyond that; the parenthetical '(type, specialty, description...)' describes returned profile fields rather than the input filters.

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 names a specific resource and scope: DID-LLM entries whose owners opted into DebitMyData's directory, returned newest first with profile and DID-LLM document. That is clearly more than a restatement of the title, though it never explicitly frames the operation as a search or contrasts it with the sibling dmd_list_in_directory.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance. The clause about owners who 'chose to be listed' is a scope constraint on results, not a usage rule, and nothing tells an agent whether to prefer this over dmd_list_in_directory or dmd_discover.

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