search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the tool discovers agents without disclosing behavioral traits like data source, freshness, rate limits, or result format. The schema covers defaults and enum but not runtime behavior.

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?

Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with key purpose. However, it could be more precise by aligning with actual parameters and avoiding the misleading 'tags' reference.

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?

Given no output schema and a large set of sibling tools, the description lacks explanation of return format, pagination behavior (despite page/limit params), and how results differ from other search tools. Incomplete for a search 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds confusion by referencing 'tags' which is not a parameter. It does not provide meaningful additional context beyond the schema, and the misleading claim reduces clarity.

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?

Description states it searches 'agents' with specific criteria, making verb and resource clear. However, it mentions 'tags' as a criterion while the input schema has no tags parameter, causing confusion. The name 'search' is generic and does not differentiate from many sibling search tools for different resources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools that search for specific entities (e.g., LinkedIn, companies, news). Implied usage is to search agents, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative suggestions.

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