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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While it lists the search dimensions, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a list of agents, full details), whether it is a read-only operation, or any pagination or permission constraints. The description is too thin to fully inform the agent about behavioral outcomes.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the search filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the main source of context. It adequately describes the search functionality but omits information about the return format, result limits, or how it relates to list_agents. For a simple search tool, this is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by naming each parameter's role: 'free-text query' maps to query, 'category' to category, 'tag' to tag, and 'runnable flag' to runnable. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it lacks specific value formats or examples.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search agents by free-text query, category, tag, or runnable flag.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('agents') and the filtering dimensions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent (specific agent retrieval) and list_agents (listing all agents).

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?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does, implying it should be used when filtering agents by criteria such as query, category, tag, or runnable status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_agents or get_agent, nor does it provide exclusions. It is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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