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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a useful caveat that SELF_ATTESTED_UNVERIFIED entries are discovery leads only, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, filtering semantics, required authentication, or whether this is purely read-only. The 'search' wording implies read behavior, but details are missing.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and subject are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an important data-quality caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description names the directory and types of capabilities and flags an important trust caveat, but it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance needed to fully understand result filtering or how to interpret output. Acceptable for a basic search tool, but there are clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It gives examples of capability types but does not explain the 'protocol' enum, how 'capability' interacts with 'protocol', or how the optional parameters affect results. The description adds some category context but leaves parameter meaning largely to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('the MUJ428 compatibility directory'), and lists concrete examples of what it finds (evidence providers, receipt-aware executors, wallets, MCP/A2A integrations). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_capabilities, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_capabilities, observe_trust_compatibility, or resolve_trust_route. The description implies a discovery/search use case but provides no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose among siblings.

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