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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses determinism (no model involved, same input gives same answer), that stale listings are hidden unless include_stale is set, that interpretation/relaxations are returned, and that the call is free with no payment or account required. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, output shape, and constraints in a logical order, with no filler. It is a dense single block rather than segmented, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the gaps: it enumerates the returned fields (id, name, price, connection/payment types, verifiability, stale/unclaimed), describes the interpretation and relaxations outputs, and points to follow-up tools (describe_listing, how_to_pay). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that words for connection type, payment type, price cap and task are converted into filters by fixed rules and that the response's interpretation shows which rules fired and what was ignored. That mapping between free-text `need` and the filter parameters is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Finds services on the Agent Discovery Board') plus the scope ('that can do what you need'), so an agent immediately knows this is a natural-language discovery entry point. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling search_listings/list_facets tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It tells the agent how to invoke it ('Say it in plain words in `need` ... and/or give explicit filters') and when the relaxation output becomes relevant ('when little or nothing matches'). It gives clear context but names no alternative tool for exact/faceted lookups, so there are no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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