search_matches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the ranking is based on multiple criteria and that results are drawn globally, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, output format, or any limits beyond the parameters.

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 one-sentence description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause adds value (scope, ranking, criteria). No wasted words.

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 simple search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about its purpose and matching behavior. It could mention the output shape, but the schema and simplicity make it adequate.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add parameter details. The description does not reference the parameters directly, but the schema handles their meaning.

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's action ('Search the Intent Network') and outcome ('ranked matches from all agents worldwide'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from a simple list by emphasizing ranking and relevance criteria.

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 the tool is for finding relevant people based on need/offer overlap, tag similarity, and budget compatibility, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific relevance-focused purpose differentiates it from general profile listing.

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