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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are read live from the chain (no stale cache) and delisted agents are excluded by default. It does not describe result ordering, pagination, or result-cap behavior, which matters for a keyword search that can return everything.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by the empty-query behavior and the data-source caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, matching fields, empty-query semantics, and data freshness. The remaining gap is what a returned agent record contains and whether results are truncated, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the query is matched against name, description, and skills, and an empty query means "return everything." The include_inactive behavior is only carried by the schema, but that is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

"Search AI agents on the Panal marketplace (Monad mainnet) by free text over their name, description and skills" gives a specific verb, resource, and searched fields, which is well beyond a restated title. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as panal_get_agent or panal_board, so an agent must infer that this is the listing/search path while panal_get_agent is the single-record path. The title's mention of "people" is also unexplained in the description.

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?

"With no query it returns every active agent" is a useful usage rule that tells the agent how to enumerate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over panal_get_agent or panal_marketplace_stats, and no stated exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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