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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry trust scores and discloses a cost ($0.007), which is genuinely useful context, but omits pagination/result-size behavior beyond the schema's limit.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource; every clause carries information except the parenthetical cost, which is terse and arguably useful. No padding or repetition.

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 structure need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the payload (agents with trust scores). All parameters are schema-documented, leaving only sibling differentiation and pagination as minor gaps for a read-only discovery tool.

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 chain, limit, keyword and capability are already documented at the field level (including the capability enum list). The description only restates the filter dimensions and adds no format or syntax detail, matching the baseline-3 expectation.

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 (Discover) and resource (AI Agents) plus the three filter facets, and adds what is returned (matching agents with trust scores). However, it does not name or contrast the sibling agent.card.lookup, so the boundary between 'discover many' and 'lookup one' is left to inference.

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?

'Useful for finding agents to collaborate with' gives an implied scenario but no explicit when-to-use versus agent.card.lookup or agent.reputation. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so routing depends on the agent's own reading of the sibling list.

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