Agent Exchange by Shekkizh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the response includes provider sources and connection requirements, which gives some context about what the tool returns, but it does not discuss other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, or availability. It is satisfactory but not rich.

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?

The description is a single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one Agent Exchange listing by its stable ID') and appends a useful qualifier about the response contents. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the listing is, how it is identified, and what the response includes. It does not cover fallback behavior or error cases, but given the low complexity and existing annotation coverage, the core information an agent needs is present.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. The phrase 'by its stable ID' gives semantic meaning to the sole parameter 'id', clarifying that it is a stable identifier for an Agent Exchange listing, not just an arbitrary string. This is more than the raw schema provides, though it does not detail ID formats or lookup rules.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Agent Exchange listing'), and a distinguishing lookup mechanism ('by its stable ID'). It also mentions what the response includes (provider sources, connection requirements). This makes it easily distinguishable from the sibling search_capabilities, which would be used for discovery rather than exact ID lookup.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a specific listing when you know the stable ID, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_capabilities, nor does it mention that search_capabilities should be used when the ID is unknown. The guidance is present only by implication.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important clarification 'No external tool execution,' reinforcing the read-only nature beyond the annotation. It also discloses what the tool returns ('documentation, access requirements and limitations'), which is useful behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filter options, then a behavioral note. It is concise with no redundant content, though it could be slightly more structured if it listed parameters explicitly.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (2 with enums) and no output schema. The description explains the high-level purpose and return type (documentation, access requirements, limitations) but does not clarify the meaning of 'query' or 'limit', nor does it specify the output format beyond a summary. Given the complexity, more detail on parameter semantics and output structure would be expected.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'type, category or connection protocol,' which maps to the 'kind', 'category', and 'protocol' parameters, but it does not explain the required 'query' parameter or the 'limit' parameter. Since only three of five parameters are addressed and the required query is omitted, the compensation is partial.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find tools or hosted agents for a task' and mentions filtering by type, category, or connection protocol. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_capability' by focusing on searching rather than retrieving a single item, making the scope 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_capability'. It implies a search/discovery use case but does not state when one should prefer this over fetching a specific capability. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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