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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'finds' and 'asks' agents, implying network calls and aggregation, but it does not disclose whether results are aggregated, how failures are handled, whether it waits for all agents, rate limits, or what 'independently' means for the response. The word 'independently' hints at parallel execution but is not elaborated.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It earns its place by adding the 'independently' qualifier, which is meaningful. It could be slightly more informative, but it is not bloated or repetitive.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the output looks like, how many agents are queried by default, whether results are deduplicated, or how errors are surfaced. An agent would need to call it to learn basic behavior, which is a significant gap.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'find' and 'ask' but does not explain the difference between 'query' and 'question', nor what 'max_agents' controls beyond its name. An agent would have to guess whether 'query' is a search filter and 'question' is the prompt sent to each agent.

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' and 'ask') and a clear resource ('public A2A agents'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like neo_discover (which likely just finds agents) by adding the 'ask several independently' behavior. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a concrete sense of what the tool does.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to query multiple public A2A agents at once. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like neo_discover (for discovery only) or neo_web_search (for general web queries), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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