search_agents

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

With no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (ranked list, zero-agent response includes taxonomy) and implies read-only nature. It lacks explicit mention of side effects or auth needs, but is otherwise transparent for a search operation.

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?

Concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage rationale and critical taxonomy notes. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 no output schema and 6 params, the description fully explains return format, edge case handling, and parameter nuances. It provides sufficient context for correct invocation without missing critical details.

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?

100% schema coverage with good descriptions. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining capability taxonomy patterns, providing latency ranges (5000-15000ms), and clarifying defaults like min_avg_stars=4.0.

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 it searches the registry for agents by capability, returning a ranked list with prices, latency, and reputation. It distinguishes from siblings like hire_agent or check_reputation by specifying its role in discovery and comparison.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (finding agents for hire, tasks outside native capabilities) and detailed guidance on capability taxonomy: handling zero results by checking available_capabilities, retrying with exact strings, and recommending list_capabilities for uncertainty.

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