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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by confirming it returns 'Real, system-measured' data and listing the specific fields. It also clarifies no key is needed, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core information (what data is returned) and immediately provides context about its relationship to another tool. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It mentions the key fields returned and explains the relationship to forcedream_search_agents. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that omitting agent_slug returns all agents, but that's covered by the schema description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter agent_slug, which is described as optional and for filtering. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic value.

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?

Description states the tool returns 'system-measured reliability per agent: success_rate, avg_latency_ms, sample_size', clearly specifying the verb (search/reliability) and resource (agent reliability data). It distinguishes itself from the sibling forcedream_search_agents by noting it exposes the same health field standalone, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Same real data as forcedream_search_agents' health field, exposed standalone for reliability-focused queries', which guides when to use this tool vs. the sibling. It also mentions 'No key needed', implying ease of access. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide other alternatives.

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