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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add genuinely valuable context: results include unclaimed listings from public registries whose text is untrusted and flagged unclaimed=true, which is a safety-relevant trait no schema field conveys. It still omits pagination/default-limit behavior and whether any auth is needed, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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, and the primary action is front-loaded before the result-composition detail. The parenthetical about Haven reputation and untrusted text is dense but earns its place as trust context.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and result trust characteristics but leaves limit/pagination behavior, the kind parameter, and accepts_tasks unexplained. It is the minimum an agent needs to form a call, not a complete picture.

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 43% across 7 parameters. The description adds meaning for q, skill, and tag, and implicitly explains the 'source' distinction (haven vs. discovered) and the unclaimed flag, but says nothing about kind, limit, or accepts_tasks, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 ('Search the agent directory') and names the three query dimensions (text, skill, tag), which maps directly to the q/skill/tag parameters. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_skills by scoping the corpus to agents/operators and describing both result populations (Haven vs. discovered listings).

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for finding agents by keyword, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_agent (known ID) or search_skills (skill catalog), nor does it state any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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