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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the match precedence rule (startsWith wins over contains), case-insensitive matching, the unfiltered fallback when neither filter is set, the return shape, and the non-obvious quirk that the cardinality cap applies before the prefix filter. That cap-interaction detail is real behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then neighbours, then matching rules, then return shape and the example. Well organized, but slightly long and repeats a couple of schema facts (default cap of 500, case-insensitivity) that cost it a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so fully: array of {name, nameId, sets}, the meaning of sets, and the cap behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes past the schema by stating the startsWith/contains precedence and the case-insensitivity rule, though it repeats the default-500 cap that the schema already documents.

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 plus the exact matching mechanism: 'Find names in a database by text match on their display name.' It immediately scopes itself against siblings by naming describe_set, describe_query, and list_deleted_names and saying how each differs.

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?

Gives the triggering condition explicitly ('when you know roughly what something is called but not where it sits') and a concrete use case (resolving an ambiguous label like "Sales" to a nameId before querying or editing). It also routes away from three named alternatives, covering both when to use this tool and when a sibling is a better fit.

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