Find Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety is clear. Description adds valuable behavioral context about the unverified nature of results and the natural-language ranking logic, which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states the core purpose and return type, second provides usage guidance and a crucial caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Despite 10 parameters, the description is sufficient given high schema coverage (80%) and the presence of an output schema. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and a key trust caveat, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no further detail on parameters beyond schema, but the schema itself already documents most parameters well. The description does flag the deprecated minScore parameter as rejected, which is helpful but minor.

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 explicitly states 'Natural-language discovery of on-chain Stellar agents' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings rank_agent and get_agent_profile by naming them and clarifying their distinct roles.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context and alternatives: 'Use rank_agent for per-axis breakdowns and get_agent_profile for full detail.' Also warns that agent names/descriptions are self-declared and unverified, indicating caution.

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