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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: revoked agents and self-declared demo agents are excluded from results, which an agent could not learn from the annotations or schema.

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, with the purpose and filter scope front-loaded and the result/exclusion detail following. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (did:key id, capabilities, metadata) and the exclusion rules, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits result-set size, pagination, or empty-match behavior, which is a minor gap for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates the capability/trust-score filter axes without adding format or semantics beyond the schema examples. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (searches INAM-registered agents) and the two filter axes (declared capability, minimum trust score). It also names the returned fields and the exclusions, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like inam_check_reputation or inam_check that operate on different resources.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies both filters are optional and composable, so an agent can infer usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over inam_check_reputation (which presumably checks a single agent's score) or names any alternative, leaving routing to inference.

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