search_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions returning ranked matches from all agents worldwide, but does not disclose idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 search tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and matching logic. However, it does not mention default behavior (e.g., what returns without filters), pagination, or whether the tool requires prior setup (like an active intent). It is mildly incomplete.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the matching criteria (need/offer overlap, tag similarity, budget compatibility), which provides context beyond raw parameter names.

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 Intent Network for relevant people, specifies the criteria (need/offer overlap, tag similarity, budget compatibility), and distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on intents or agent management.

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 implies use for finding relevant matches, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_agents or list_profiles, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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