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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing keyword + semantic (embedding) retrieval and by enumerating the returned AgentCard fields. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Five sentences, each contributing a distinct fact: resource, retrieval method, return shape, recommendation preference, and usage exclusion. The core action is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters, the description covers what it searches, how it searches, what it returns, and how to use the results. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that q is used for keyword + semantic embedding retrieval and that results are AgentCard objects. It does not add per-parameter detail for sort, type, country, etc., but the schema already covers those.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching the Trusgent Trust Layer directory for people and businesses with public Agent Cards, and it clarifies the retrieval mechanism. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search_registry, leaving some potential overlap for an agent to infer.

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 tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool ('Use before recommending any agent to an end user') and what not to use it for ('Do not treat this as intent/demand matching — that is a separate flow'). It also instructs a preference for verified agents when recommending, which shapes result usage.

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