search_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (list with safeAddress and active chains) but omits details about search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching, pagination, or error handling). The behavior is adequately described for a simple search, but not exceptionally detailed.

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 concise sentences, each adding value. The first defines the action and criteria, the second adds contextual use and output summary. No redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity of the tool (single required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and return structure. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., no results) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to decide to use 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?

Schema describes the query parameter, and the description adds no additional detail beyond what the schema already provides (name or address). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on input format or constraints.

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 verb (Finds) and resource (other agents), and specifies the search criteria (by name or wallet address). It adds context about the use case (A2A partnerships), making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 a clear use case (discovering partners for collaboration/payment) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The context implies appropriate usage, but no exclusions are stated.

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