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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what comes back (what each agent does, how it is used, and its cost), though it says nothing about result ordering or the 20-result cap's implications for coverage.

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 dense sentences: the first identifies and scopes the tool, the second describes the payload and the follow-up step. Nothing is repeated from the title or wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at an appropriate level of abstraction, and all params and annotations are covered elsewhere. It is only slightly incomplete on result ordering/pagination, which matters for a capped list 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% — every parameter including the protocol enum is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find AI agents listed on Dolphin'), adds scope (BNB Chain, ERC-8004) and what the results contain, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_agent, which is the drill-down sibling. An agent can tell this is a discovery/search tool and not a detail or invocation tool.

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?

Gives clear usage context — search by need in a few words, empty query lists top agents — and routes the agent forward with 'Use get_agent next for an agent's tools.' It does not cover when to prefer alternatives such as list_categories or call_agent, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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