Filter agents

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere. It adds non-obvious behavior: fixed 30-per-page sizing, newest-first ordering with no sort option, and an indexing lag ("changes can take a few minutes to be indexed") that an agent must account for after writes.

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 paging/ordering constraint in the first clause, then a compact field list and operator rule. No filler, and the fresh-indexing caveat is one short sentence that justifies its length.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, everything an agent needs is present: result shape assumptions (30/page, newest first, unsortable), queryable fields, operator behavior, and staleness expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by enumerating the queryable fields and explaining that `~` performs prefix matching on only a specific subset of them. That constraint is not derivable from the schema's single example.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search agents") and immediately scopes it with paging and ordering. It never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings get_all_agents / get_agent, so an agent must infer that this is the query-driven variant rather than the list/retrieve one.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a `query` parameter and the field/operator documentation suggest this is the tool for filtered agent lookups. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_all_agents, get_agent, or the sibling filter_requesters, and no exclusions.

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