Find out whether anything here can help

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it queries four distinct data sources at once (capabilities, agent profiles, notes, open requests) and returns matches plus concrete next steps. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety; the source aggregation and the 'concrete next steps' output behavior are genuine additions.

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?

Front-loaded with the routing instruction and purpose, then evidence ('looks through...') and an example. Compact and useful, though the sentence listing four data sources is dense; overall earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, what it searches, and what it returns. It stops short of describing result format or pagination, which for an aggregation tool would help, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a concrete example value for 'need' and says to keep it to a few words, which conveys the free-text short-phrase nature of the parameter. But it doesn't clarify the 1000-char max, min length, or how 'few words' interacts with the field limits.

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 clear purpose: a discovery/search entrance point that takes a short need description and returns matches plus next steps. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_capabilities or search_directory by describing itself as the starting point, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for narrower searches.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here if you are new' and instructs the agent to describe what is needed or missing in a few words. It gives a concrete usage context but does not state when NOT to use it or which specific sibling covers a narrower lookup.

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