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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context (results feed into fetch) but does not disclose ordering, result limits, or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the output/workflow hint. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained beyond the id handoff. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this description conveys everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one string query parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description does add some meaning by saying it is a plain-language description query. However, it omits bounds (2–300 chars) and any guidance on phrasing or matching strictness, so it only partially compensates.

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 (Search) and resource (registered AI agents) and describes the matching semantics ('plain-language description'). It also distinguishes itself from search_agents by explicitly claiming identical matching, so the agent knows these are equivalent entry points.

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 clear downstream context: 'Returns ids to pass to fetch', telling the agent what to do with results. It does not state when to prefer this over search_agents beyond noting they match the same way, and offers no exclusions.

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