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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value by disclosing the evidence-ranked nature of the index and the forward-compatibility promise for filters. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage, though it does not discuss rate limits 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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and return value, the second explains filter usage and future compatibility. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool has a nested filters object and an output schema, which cover parameter details and return shape. The description adds domain context (evidence-ranked index) and API stability note, making it reasonably complete. It lacks guidance on choosing between sibling search tools, but the schema and annotations cover most operational aspects.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds only that filters are 'structured constraints' and mentions future filter keys, which is not immediate semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('AI agents across AgentCrush's evidence-ranked index'), and notes the return info (category, tier, rank). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_agents', which likely has a similar purpose, so it misses the sibling distinction needed for a 5.

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 implies usage for name/keyword search and mentions using the 'filters' object for structured constraints, but it does not specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'find_agents' or 'compare_agents'. No exclusions or explicit 'use this when' guidance is provided.

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