Find existing IMD work before paying

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the cost model ('Reusing a public result costs nothing. Free.') and implies read-only search scope, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result size/pagination, or exactly what a hit contains. This is meaningful but incomplete behavioral context for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the cost benefit. No filler, no repetition beyond the useful 'Free' emphasis, and every clause 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 simple three-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and cost, but omits result shape, pagination behavior via 'limit', and any auth/permission context. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the categories matching the 'type' enum (sites, research, audits, code, tokens, contracts, media), adding meaning to that parameter, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter (default 8, max 25) or the 'query' syntax beyond what the schema already documents. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('everything the swarm already shipped'), then enumerates the searchable domains (sites, research, audits, code, tokens, contracts, media). The title's 'before paying' plus the description's 'reusing a public result costs nothing' implicitly contrasts this with the paid order sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: find already-shipped work before paying, and reuse is free. However, it does not name any alternative tool explicitly (e.g., imd_order) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives/exclusions required for a 5.

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