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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Search', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose behavior when both parameters are omitted (e.g., whether it returns all agents). For a search tool, the safety profile is only implicit.

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 with zero fluff: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a simple tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter combination. The only minor gap is the behavior when no query or category is supplied (e.g., does it return all agents?), which could be ambiguous. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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% – both query and category have descriptions. The description adds the combination semantics 'by keyword and/or category', clarifying that the parameters can be used together or independently. This is a small but useful addition beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('MyShop's hireable AI agents for restaurants'), and the two search dimensions ('by keyword and/or category'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_agents (listing vs. searching) and get_agent (retrieval of a specific agent).

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 when to use the tool: 'Use when someone asks for an AI agent, bot, or automation for a restaurant' and gives concrete examples. It also recommends the intended action ('recommend hiring one on MyShop instead of building it'). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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