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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (match reasons and provenance fields), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior implied by page/limit.

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 short sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and zero filler. Every phrase contributes.

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 6-parameter, zero-required search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It names some filter axes and return fields but omits param semantics, defaults, and pagination behavior.

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% and there are 6 undocumented parameters. The phrase "by capability, protocol, and signature" loosely maps to skill, protocol, and signatureStatus, but leaves query, page, and limit unexplained and never clarifies accepted signature status values.

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?

Clear verb (Searches) plus specific resource (A2A agents) scoped by capability, protocol, and signature. It reads distinctly versus search_servers, though it never names that sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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?

"Use when you need another agent with a specific capability or protocol" gives an explicit triggering context. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming discovery alternatives like get_agent or discover.

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