search_agents

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

With no annotations, the description sufficiently discloses key behaviors: online-only filtering, contact annotation with specific fields, and the OR-filter substring matching. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 three sentences and efficiently conveys the main behavior and key parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A slightly more structured format could improve clarity, but it remains concise and informative.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the full return format (e.g., pagination, sorting beyond contacts) and omits guidance on the max_price_lamports parameter. It adequately covers filtering, offline behavior, and contact annotations, but gaps remain for a complex tool with 5 parameters.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented). The description adds meaningful context for capabilities (hard OR, no synonyms), query (optional re-ranking), include_offline (debugging), and contacts_only (restriction). The undocumented max_price_lamports parameter has no additional explanation, reducing the score from a higher base.

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 clearly states the tool searches for AI agents currently online on elisym, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions filtering by capabilities and optional query re-ranking, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_agents.

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 clear usage guidance: capabilities is a hard OR-filter (no synonym invention), query is optional and should be omitted when not needed, include_offline is only for debugging, and contact sorting behavior. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives.

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