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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: revoked agents and self-declared demo agents are excluded from results, plus a summary of the returned record shape. No pagination, result-count limits, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler; the core operation and filter dimensions come first and the exclusion rules and return shape follow in a compact clause.

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 2-parameter, optional-both search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, exclusions, and return fields — enough to call it correctly. Only result-size/pagination behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity.

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 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions with an example capability string, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the two filters but adds no syntax guidance (e.g., matching semantics for capability, scale or range of trust score) beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Searches) plus resource (INAM-registered agents) and the two filter dimensions (capability, minimum trust score), then lists the returned fields. Sibling tools (inam_check, inam_get_receipt, inam_hash_content) are clearly different functions, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — discovery of agents by capability and/or trust threshold — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus inam_check or inam_check_reputation (e.g., search first, then verify a specific agent). 'and/or' signals both parameters are optional but that is already in the schema.

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