airc_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior (e.g., empty results). This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 two sentences, direct, and free of redundancies. Every word serves a purpose, fitting the conciseness ideal.

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 clear purpose, the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description omits details on return format, pagination, ordering, or behavior when no results. Context is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds only that 'capability' and 'query' are alternative search methods, which is already implied. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Find' and resource 'AI agents', specifying methods 'by capability or natural language query'. It gives a clear purpose, though lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'airc_who' or 'airc_capabilities'.

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 includes 'Use this to find agents that can help with specific tasks', which provides a basic usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the listed siblings.

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