search_agents

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains behavioral aspects such as the strict capability taxonomy, the inclusion of available_capabilities on zero results, and the retry logic. It does not cover authorization or rate limits, but provides sufficient context for the tool's core 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?

The description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose. While it contains some extra details, every sentence serves a purpose (main action, usage case, troubleshooting, alternative advice). Could be slightly more concise but well-structured.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers what is returned (ranked list with key fields) and provides retry and taxonomy guidance. It is complete enough for effective agent 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond schema definitions. It explains the capability ID taxonomy with example strings and a link, and provides usage hints for optional parameters (e.g., default values for min_success_rate and min_avg_stars).

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the Swarmwage registry for agents by capability, returning a ranked list with prices, latency, and reputation. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique function of finding agents for hire, contrasting with tools like hire_agent 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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when encountering a task you cannot perform natively) and provides guidance on what to do if no agents are found (retry with exact taxonomy from available_capabilities or call list_capabilities first). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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