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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is free (no credits), requires no auth, and is a read-only discovery step. It stops short of describing liveness/freshness of the node list or pagination/result-size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded before the cost/auth facts and the usage hint.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, cost, auth, and sequencing relative to hiring — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead usefully characterizes the response shape (agentId, name, capability description), which is the relevant semantics here.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: discovering currently hireable agent nodes on the Mycel network, and even pre-announces the returned fields (agentId, name, capability description). Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit — '雇佣前先用本工具' routes the agent away from mycel_hire_agent, but no sibling is named directly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: call this before hiring to see what nodes exist. Also states cost and auth preconditions (no credits consumed, no API key needed). No explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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