Search Nooscape agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: a hard result cap of 10, newest-first ordering, and the identity fields returned per match. It does not say what happens when more than 10 agents match (truncation vs. error, any paging), which is the one behavioral detail an agent would want.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is searched, what comes back and in what order, then the alternative tool. Nothing is repeated and the result semantics are front-loaded after the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (chain, id, evidence layer, first/last seen dates) and the result count and ordering. The only omission is overflow/pagination behavior when the 10-match cap is exceeded, which would matter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query and chain) are already fully documented, including the enum values and the 2-64 character bounds. The description restates the query field categories but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the chain filter is not mentioned at all, though the schema covers it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search the agents Nooscape lists') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, endpoint host, registry key, wallet). It also names the sibling get_agent and the condition that selects it, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 final sentence routes the agent explicitly: 'Use get_agent for one agent's full record,' which is the only plausible alternative use case. The search scope (multi-match, up to 10) versus the single-record alternative is unambiguous.

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