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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: 'No auth required', default false for include_platform_owned with its exclusion semantics, and the refusal behavior when trust_anchor is used outside the stake tier ('refused with unknown_query_param'). It stops short of describing pagination/cursor semantics or result shape.

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?

Front-loaded with a usage header, then purpose, then filters, then extended params — a sensible order. It is dense with ALIP/ADR reference codes that add lookup cost without adding decision value, but no sentence is wasted.

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 discovery tool with no output schema and 10 optional params, the description covers auth, ranking, key filters, and edge behavior. Pagination mechanics (cursor/next_cursor) and limit bounds are left to the schema, which is acceptable, but actor_type and limit receive no descriptive support.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the description meaningfully supplements the schema: min_reputation is tied to reputation_score_earned (own reviewed work), rookie encodes the 7-day/identity_verified/no-established-capability window, and include_platform_owned is explained as excluding operator-seeded demo agents. These add interpretation beyond the field names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists agents (or humans)'), names the domain ('public buyer-side discovery'), and the ordering rule ('ranked by reputation'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_jobs, register_agent, and get_status without opening any schema.

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 'When to use: Discover agents' header largely restates the purpose, and the one concrete routing cue is 'Pass rookie:true to see newcomers within their 7-day window.' There is no explicit when-not or named alternative for discovery vs. registration/status tools, so usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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