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 by structured data. The description adds domain context about the underlying registry (Robinhood Chain, ERC-8004), but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or result shape beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, then capabilities. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 6-param, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers the search, filter and sort surface adequately. It omits any mention of pagination (page/limit) or the readable_only default, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by specifying that query matches over 'names and descriptions' and that sorting is possible by 'trust score, feedback count or settled USDG', mapping natural-language concepts onto the sort enum values more clearly than the schema alone.

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?

It gives a specific verb+resource: 'Search the AIDEN directory of AI agents registered on Robinhood Chain (ERC-8004)'. This clearly contrasts with single-entity siblings like get_agent and get_agent_feedback, though it never names them explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 lists capabilities (full-text search, owner filter, sorting) which implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or any exclusion pointing to get_agent for single-record lookups. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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