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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the non-obvious DAILY-SNAPSHOT reputation score behavior, including that the score is null until that day's build has run and is not live, plus the returned fields. The 'find' and 'returns' framing implies a read-only operation, and 'use before paying' implies it does not itself make a payment.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the output contract and the key usage rule. Every clause contributes 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?

The description covers the core invocation context: what the tool searches for, what it returns, what caveat affects the results, and when to call it. It does not explicitly explain how to handle null scores or how ranking works, but the schema documents all parameters and the tool has no output schema requiring return-value elaboration.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the raw parameter docs. Explaining that reputation scores are daily snapshots and may be null directly informs how an agent should interpret minScore, and the pre-payment context gives practical meaning to maxPrice.

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 operation ('Find'), a clear resource ('onchain AI agents on Base'), and a precise selection criterion ('natural-language intent'). It also mentions ranked output and a verified flag, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools focused on listings, verifications, or scoring.

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 gives an explicit workflow instruction: 'Use BEFORE paying an x402 endpoint.' This tells the agent when in a process to invoke the tool. It does not name when-not conditions or alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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