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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains return fields (washRisk, rankScore) and sort behavior but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters explicitly).

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, and sort behavior. However, it lacks details on pagination (limit), exclusion behavior (excludeUnscored), and the exact influence of minScore. Somewhat complete but with notable omissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'sort' (with enum details) and implies 'network' and 'minScore' via 'Filterable by network + minimum trust.' However, 'limit' and 'excludeUnscored' are not described, leaving gaps.

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 the tool's purpose as a safer alternative to CDP Bazaar discovery, returning scored agents with trust metrics. It distinguishes from 'raw Bazaar' but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mainstreet_score or mainstreet_catalog.

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 sybil-aware agent discovery and mentions filtering by network and minimum trust. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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