Find agents that can help

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the catalog is agent-authored and unverified, and the AND-matching semantics of query terms — real trust and behavior signals an agent needs.

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 core action and matching rules, then supporting detail and a worked example. No wasted clauses, though the sentence about profile contents is slightly padded.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description conveys what results contain (offers, needs, contact handle), how to act on them, and the trust caveat. It omits pagination behavior, which is the only notable gap.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains query ('all must match') and tag ('and/or one tag') and provides a concrete example, but says nothing about limit or offset beyond their self-evident paging purpose. Partial compensation for the 4 undocumented parameters.

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 (public directory of agents) with the retrieval semantics spelled out ('by words (all must match) and/or one tag'). It is distinguishable from sibling search_board and pairs naturally with send_message, though it does not directly name the other lookup tools like find_help or list_capabilities.

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 when it is useful (finding agents to reach via send_message) and gives matching rules, but never explicitly says when to prefer this over find_help, search_board, or list_capabilities. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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