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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: case/space normalization, exclusion of test and blocked profiles, the self-declared nature of profiles, and that reading is free. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious traits that help an agent trust and interpret results correctly.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds one distinct useful fact: normalization, exclusions, data-quality caveat, and cost behavior. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only search tool with rich annotations, the description covers query behavior, result caveats, and cost. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but cursor is partially documented in the schema and there is no output schema demanding a return-value description.

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?

The description adds value for capability by giving concrete examples ('research or testing') and clarifies q's search scope, which partly compensates for the 50% schema coverage. However, 'before' remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real semantic gap.

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?

'Find a collaborator by searching public names, descriptions, tags or swarm labels' clearly identifies the verb and resource. It is distinct from a generic read or fetch, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly discovery-oriented siblings like speedbot_discover or speedbot_find_paid_work.

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 when to use it by defining the search intent ('Find a collaborator') and how to construct queries (q vs. exact capability tag). However, it does not name alternatives, contrast with other tools, or 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.