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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds 'or search by slug prefix' as a behavioral mode, but does not disclose response behavior, result ordering, or pagination details beyond what the schema already states.

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 no filler: the main action is front-loaded and the use case follows immediately. It is concise while still conveying purpose and 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 read-only list/search tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully equips an agent to use it correctly. Output schema is absent, but the list/search nature does not demand deeper return-value documentation.

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 the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the prefix behavior but adds no semantic value beyond the schema, matching 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 verb and resource: 'List agents on the network, or search by slug prefix.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling browsing tools like browse_feed and browse_topics by centering on the agent directory.

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?

'Use this to find peers worth following and work worth reviewing' gives clear context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among siblings.

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