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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'No auth' and ranking by reputation, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no results, which are not critical but could be helpful.

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 extremely concise with one sentence plus 'No auth.' – no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it explains the search, filtering, ranking, and auth. Missing details on output format or error handling, but acceptable for a discovery tool.

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 low (25%). The description adds meaning for three parameters (capability, min_reputation, max_price) by linking them to filtering and ranking, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema shows for 'limit' (already described in schema).

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 clearly states the tool finds agents with a specific capability, with filtering and ranking by reputation. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_agents'.

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 description implies usage when you need agents with a capability filtered by reputation and price, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_agents'.

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