agent_search_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well for a read: it discloses that data traverses a public relay with no content encryption and that returned content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions. It omits pagination, rate-limit, and result-ordering behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prompt-injection warning given its own sentence. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the security posture is covered. Complete enough to call safely, though the relationship to sibling listing/discovery tools is not spelled out.

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 name, limit, and query are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching semantics, or query-format guidance beyond that baseline.

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 and resource: search capabilities across all agents. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling agent_list_capabilities, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between searching broadly versus listing.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Search all agents' capabilities,' suggesting cross-agent discovery rather than a scoped listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus agent_list_capabilities or agent_discover, and no stated exclusions.

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