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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains the matching fields (name, maker, description, role, job), the 20-result cap, best-match ordering, and that each hit includes its zerocrew.ai page.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then return shape, then narrowing and follow-up. No filler and no repetition of schema detail beyond what adds meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing result count, ordering, and per-result content. With 6 parameters, 1 required, all documented, and the field-matching behavior explained, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the query is matched against name, maker, description, role, and job, and it groups the narrowing filters (role, job, kind, mcp) into a coherent usage note.

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 and resource ('Search the ZeroCrew directory of AI agents, apps, and models') and describes what is matched against the query. It also explicitly routes to the sibling get_tool for full detail, so an agent can distinguish it from list_roles/list_job.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use examples ('customer interviews', 'ai receptionist', 'bookkeeping') and names the follow-up alternative get_tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or when to prefer list_roles/list_job, but the guidance is clear in context.

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