a4a_find_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by describing the return fields (address, category, capabilities, profile text) and that None disables each filter, but it is silent on pagination, result limits, ordering, and any auth requirements for the search.

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 purpose and sibling contrast, then cleanly structured Args/Returns sections. The repeated 'None disables this filter' line is slightly redundant but genuinely useful for optional-filter semantics.

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?

All three optional parameters are documented, an output schema exists and the description briefly summarizes the return shape, so an agent has what it needs to call correctly. Minor gaps are pagination/limits, which the output schema may partly cover but the description does not tie in.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the valid category values (development, design, marketing, etc.), gives an example capability ('seo') and an ISO language code ('ru'), and explains that None disables each filter. Only the capability parameter remains open-ended without a value list.

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 (find) and resource (agents on the A4A network by profile) and explicitly distinguishes itself from a4a_search_intents, which searches orders instead of providers. An agent can route between 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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to find whom to contact' and contrasts it with a4a_search_intents ('searches for ORDERS'). That is clear use-context with the key alternative named, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisite notes.

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