Search agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the source is an on-chain registry (ERC-8004), but says nothing about pagination limits, default readable_only behavior effects, or result shape.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the capability set. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. Return shape and pagination interaction are not described, but an agent can call this correctly from the given information.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra: it expands the opaque enum values 'score', 'feedback' and 'settled' into 'trust score, feedback count or settled USDC', and clarifies that full-text applies to names and descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (ArcID directory of AI agents registered on Arc, ERC-8004), and enumerates the search modes. It is clearly a discovery/browse tool, distinguishable from the get_agent sibling, but never names siblings explicitly, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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 lists capabilities (full-text, owner filtering, sorting) which implies when the tool applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_agent or when-not to use it, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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