agirails_find_agents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return data fields (address, pricing, covenant, etc.), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for search methods and return data. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits details on the remaining two parameters, which would have been valuable but doesn't fit the conciseness criterion.

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, the description does mention the return data (Agent Card v2). However, it lacks completeness by not describing all parameters (limit, network) or any pagination behavior. The tool has reasonable complexity with 4 optional parameters, so more detail would improve completeness.

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. It mentions two parameters (capability and keyword) but omits limit and network. The provided examples ('translation', 'data analysis') add some context, but the description fails to explain the default values and enum for network and the purpose of limit.

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 discovers AI agents on the AGIRAILS network and returns Agent Card v2 data. It specifies search methods (by capability or keyword), distinguishing it from sibling tools like agirails_get_agent_card which retrieves a specific agent.

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 when to use the tool (searching for agents by capability or keyword). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings like agirails_get_agent_card.

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