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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope by saying which entity types and name sources can be searched, but it does not disclose matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy), result multiplicity, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds a searchable entity type or name domain, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what can be searched but not what a result looks like or how ambiguous matches are handled. It is callable, but an agent lacks enough context to predict result shape or matching behavior.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the sole query parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does so by enumerating acceptable query targets: an address, transaction, epoch, agent forum/census name, or LabLeak post title. It still lacks detail on whether matching is exact or partial.

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 uses a specific verb (Find) and enumerates the resource types it can resolve: addresses, transactions, epochs, agents, and LabLeak posts. It is clearly a cross-entity lookup tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many get_* siblings that fetch known entities directly.

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 by the list of searchable names/titles, so an agent can infer this is for human-readable or title-based lookup. However, the description never states when to use search versus get_address, get_transaction, get_epoch, or the list_* siblings, leaving a real routing gap.

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