find_expert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: the return shape (action lines, credibility anchors, why matched), the roster breadth (4,150+), and the two-tier agent distinction with the correct follow-up tool for each. It stops short of explaining ranking or reliability caveats.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition before the return description, so the agent learns when-to-use first. The second sentence is dense with parenthetical asides but every clause carries routing or return information, so little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden and does: it explains the number of results, their contents, the roster scale, and how to act on each agent tier via named sibling tools. Nothing essential for calling this discovery tool correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (query, limit, userId) are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description only loosely reinforces the query intent and the 2–3 result count, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource (find expert) and frames it as a discovery/ranking operation via the 'Returns 2–3 ranked candidate experts' clause. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling consult_human_agent (consultation) and request_expert_intro (introduction), so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when the user asks what specialists think, seeks an authoritative perspective, or needs practitioner depth' and supplies two concrete example phrasings. It also routes follow-up actions: consult_human_agent for active agents vs request_expert_intro for on-request agents, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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