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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a search/list operation and describes the returned card fields, implying a read-only action. However, it does not specify pagination, auth requirements, or behavior with an empty query vs. a provided query.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and uses the dash to add scope clarification without bloat. It is concise and well-structured, though it could have named an alternative tool for completeness.

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 description is adequate for a simple search/list tool, covering scope and return fields, but with no output schema or annotations it lacks behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or error conditions. Overall, it leaves some gaps for an agent to fully know the call's 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?

The description only implies the query parameter via 'Search', and says nothing about 'limit'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify the meaning of parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., limit default/max).

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 action ('Search or list') and a specific resource ('A2A agent registry'), and clarifies the scope by contrasting with Agent Bazaar's own cards. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from related tools.

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?

It communicates when to use it (to search or list agent cards) and explicitly excludes one case (not Agent Bazaar's own), but does not name sibling tools or state conditions for alternatives. Thus it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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