arc_agents_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds important nuance beyond the schema: x402=true is a much smaller set than payment=true, and resolvable=true means the card actually fetched on the last crawl. That meaningfully shapes agent expectations, though it does not describe result format or side effects (which are unlikely for a search).

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 front-loaded with purpose, then moves to parameter semantics, ending with the important caveat. All sentences earn their place and there is no filler, though the x402/payment sentence is dense and could potentially be tightened.

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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious filter semantics and purpose. It does not describe the result list shape or ordering, and since there is no output schema that would otherwise clarify returns, this is a minor gap that prevents a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond it: it defines what q matches, what skill matches, and crucially distinguishes x402 from payment with a concrete example (USDC via ERC-8183 is not x402). This prevents a likely misinterpretation and makes parameter selection genuinely safer.

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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Find an Arc agent that does something, and optionally one you can pay.' It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like arc_agents_list or arc_agent_get, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful parameter-selection guidance: q matches name/host/skills while skill matches skill ids/names/tags, and it explicitly warns about the non-obvious x402 vs payment distinction. It does not directly name alternative sibling tools, so it is not a full 5, but the context is clear and excludes misuse on the most confusing filter.

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