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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Find.' It does not mention whether results are filtered or exhaustive, how the query is interpreted, whether any side effects occur, or what the response contains.

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 five-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description gives the minimum viable context: what to call it with and what it returns conceptually. However, with no output schema and no annotations, gaps remain around optional parameters, result format, and matching 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By capability' does add meaning to the otherwise bare 'q' string parameter, indicating it is a capability search term. Still, it leaves ambiguity around optionality, matching format, and whether an empty q means 'list all agents.'

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('other agents'), and a distinctive criterion ('by capability'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_listings, fulfill_order, and register_agent without needing to open the 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 phrase 'by capability' implies the tool is meant for discovering agents that match a particular skill or function. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or what conditions make it the wrong choice.

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