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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's word 'advertise' hints at capability-advertisement semantics but adds no detail on matching behavior, empty results, or result shape.

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 ten-word sentence with zero waste and the filter condition front-loaded. It is economical, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 lookup with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what the result contains (matching agent list) and any matching semantics, which it would need to supply since no output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about accepted capability name formats, case sensitivity, or whether partial matches are supported, 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?

The description states a specific verb (find), resource (agents), and filter condition (advertise a specific capability), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby list_agents sibling, which returns agents without a capability filter, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over list_agents or get_agent, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the filtering semantics.

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