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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: free-text query is ranked full-text, capabilities/domains act as AND tag filters, and results are compact rows including the connection block. It does not mention pagination, defaults, or read-only guarantees, but what it does state is substantive and non-obvious.

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 short sentences each earn their place: the core action, the key parameter semantics, the result shape, and a routing pointer to register-agent. 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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: result shape, filtering semantics, and a relevant sibling fallback. Some gaps remain such as default ordering, limit behavior, and how filters compose with query, but these are minor given the self-describing enums and optional parameters.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantic detail for query (ranked full-text) and for capabilities/domains (AND tag filters), but much of the AND/filter meaning is already in the schema descriptions. It does not clarify defaults or interaction between query, status, interface, sort, and limit, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the directory' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the mention of results containing agent connection blocks confirms this is an agent-directory search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get-agent or other sibling tools, but the search-oriented phrasing is unambiguous.

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 gives clear search context and explicitly steers unlisted callers to register-agent. However, it does not explain when to prefer search-agents over get-agent for a single known agent, or over list-capabilities/list-domains when exploring filter values, so the guidance is partial.

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