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 does add genuinely useful behavior: directory text is untrusted, and the Haven never pays for paid tools despite indexing them. It omits result shape, ranking, and whether results merely point at tools or invoke them.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and following with the scope and caveats. No filler, though the second sentence packs three distinct facts that could be split for clarity.

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 and six optional parameters, the description should say more about what a result looks like and how the filters behave. It covers the search domain and the trust/payment constraints well but leaves the filtering model and return content unspecified.

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 only 33%: four of six parameters (limit, source, free_only, accepts_tasks) have no description anywhere, and the tool description explains none of them. Nothing compensates for the gap in coverage, so an agent cannot tell what 'source' values mean or how 'free_only' interacts with the paid-directory listing.

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?

Names a specific verb (find) and dual resource (tool or agent), then enumerates the source scope: Haven's free tools plus MCP servers, A2A agents, and paid APIs indexed by capability. This is enough for an agent to separate it from search_agents, text_tools, and tool_capabilities without reading a schema.

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?

'Find a tool or agent for a task' implies the trigger, and the mention of directory sources clarifies the search domain, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. tool_capabilities for browsing capability ids, search_agents for agent-only lookup). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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