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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra value is high. The description adds meaningful context: the tool returns ranked matches with a total count for pagination, implying this is a list-style discovery API. It also adds that semantic search is via query or precomputed embedding (with mutual exclusivity captured in the schema, but the description summarizes the behavior). No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core function and immediately states the output shape. Every word is functional; there is no filler. It is appropriately brief relative to the tool's schema richness, and it captures both the filtering capability and pagination behavior without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only discovery tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: search dimensions and pagination. It could mention that sort_by is ignored during semantic search, but the schema already documents that clearly with 100% coverage. The description is sufficient given the schema and annotation context; a small gap is not naming sibling distinctions.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including defaults, constraints, and mutual-exclusion notes. The description itself only names capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search, which are the key filters but does not add new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema carries the full load and the description adds no further parameter-level insight.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource (agents), and states the filtering dimensions (capability, reputation, semantic search). It also distinguishes the tool's output (ranked matches plus total count for pagination), which is distinctive against broad siblings like benchmarks_list or get_recommended_action. The purpose is unambiguous and captures what an agent needs to know at a glance.

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 clearly states this is a search/discovery tool and mentions pagination, and annotations mark it read-only and idempotent, which helps an agent choose it for safe queries. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings like get_recommended_action or find_paid_work, nor provide explicit exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear enough for discovery intent but lacks direct alternative routing.

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