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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is free and unauthenticated, it returns a page plus an opaque cursor for pagination, and it references the exact underlying endpoint. This helps an agent understand network access and pagination mechanics, which annotations do not cover.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data source; the second covers the return format. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple read-only search tool with all optional parameters and an output schema (which presumably defines the page and cursor), the description is complete. It covers auth, cost, pagination, and data source. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without further investigation.

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 all three parameters (tag, limit, cursor) are already documented. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema states, except for reaffirming the cursor is opaque and paginated, which the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (search), the resource (agent-exec's directory of paid agent-facing services), and even gives a direct endpoint reference for the same data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a search operation, whereas execute and service_card are different operations. No ambiguity.

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 provides clear context that this is a search over the directory, implying it is for read-only discovery of listings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (execute, service_card) are obviously different operations. The 'free, unauthenticated' note also signals it can be called without setup. Missing explicit 'use this when...' but context is sufficient.

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