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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/search operation and hints that reputation is visible in results, but says nothing about authentication requirements, result limits or pagination, whether minReputation is inclusive, or what happens with zero matches.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the discovery/trust use case immediately following. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and use context, and the phrase 'see how trusted they are' hints at the return shape. It stops just short of describing result content or limits, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (capability, minReputation) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description only restates the filter concepts and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail (e.g., capability string matching rules), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find INAM-registered agents') plus the filter criteria (capability and/or reputation), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like inam_get_receipt or inam_hash_content, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearest conceptual neighbor, inam_check_reputation.

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?

'Use this to discover a counterparty for a task' gives a clear implied context, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to the alternative (inam_check_reputation) for verifying a single already-known agent. Adequate minimum-viable guidance rather than explicit selection criteria.

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