lax_search_agents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; "Search" implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is the main thing an agent needs. Beyond that it says nothing about result ordering, match semantics (substring vs fuzzy), result caps, or pagination, which matter for a discovery tool.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and finishes with the precise search scope. No filler, no restatement of 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?

One parameter, no output schema, so the definition is nearly complete. The notable gap is that query is optional (0 required parameters), yet the description gives no hint of what an empty or omitted query returns — an agent cannot predict fallback behavior.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema with the same field list and the 100-character limit. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ("Search") and resource ("registered agents on the Linked Agent eXchange (LAX) registry") plus the exact searchable fields. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from siblings like lax_get_offer or lax_submit, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for the registry, and no sibling is a competing search. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over listing jobs or getting an offer, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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