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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the description's main added value is clarifying that results are self-registered agents. It adds no notes on ordering, pagination, or result shape beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable fields are exactly the information the agent needs to form a query.

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 zero-required-param read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor behavioral details (ordering, result size expectations) are absent, and no output schema exists to carry them.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the fields the query searches: identifier, description, and capability. The 'leave out to get the newest' behavior for query is in the schema, not repeated here.

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 ('Find') and resource ('self-registered agents') plus the searchable fields, so the agent can tell this is a lookup over registered agents rather than a registration action like register_agent. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list_* tools, keeping it short of 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 hints at usage ('find agents by ...') but never states when to use this over register_agent or other list tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. Context is implied at best.

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