find_similar_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a semantic search (read-only) returning results with specific attributes. It does not mention any destructive behavior or side effects, but the nature of the tool implies safety. The description adds value beyond structured fields by explaining the ranking mechanism and output fields.

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?

Two sentences with a clear example and usage note. No redundant words; purpose and guidance are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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, description adequately explains what the output contains (Laddoo score, evidence_tier, review URL). It covers purpose, usage, and return fields. Could mention pagination or error handling, but not required for basic usage. Score 4 as it is mostly complete.

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% (all three parameters described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides context for usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not need to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states it performs semantic search over Hlido's review corpus, returns ranked agents with Laddoo score, evidence_tier, review URL. It distinguishes from sibling 'find_trusted' by noting it's better than substring matching. Verb 'find' is clear, and the example task description clarifies scope.

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 states 'Use this when you have a task in mind and want Hlido's recommendation' and contrasts with 'find_trusted' for substring matching. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternative.

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