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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does it well: it discloses page size cap (50), result ordering (ranked by reputation), the meaning of total, the pagination loop, and that no auth is required. That is meaningful context an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how to page, with no filler. Each sentence carries either a constraint, a return-value explanation, or an alternative-tool route.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by defining total and next_offset and describing the exhaustion condition for pagination. Combined with the auth note and the sibling alternative, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 40% — limit and offset are documented, but capability, max_price and min_reputation are not. The description compensates by explaining that capability is the matching predicate and that min_reputation and max_price act as floors/ceilings on the result set, though it does not clarify units or whether max_price is a per-unit or total price.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Find agents that have a specific capability") and immediately qualifies scope with filtering and ranking rules. It is clearly distinguishable from search_agents, which it names in the last sentence.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for capability-based discovery, and use search_agents with an empty query to enumerate every listed agent. It also gives the exact retry condition for pagination (repeat with offset = next_offset until next_offset is null).

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