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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: the default result count of 25 and the fact that unknown arguments are rejected. It does not disclose pagination or result shape, but the added details go meaningfully beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first clause, then terse structured notes on arguments and defaults. The argument recap partly duplicates the schema, which costs a little, but nothing is padded.

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 parameterless-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, both call modes, aliasing, error strictness, and the default row count. Only pagination/result-shape guidance is absent, which is minor given the read-only annotations.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds the default-25 cap that the schema's limit field does not state, and clarifies the q/query alias resolution, which is also covered but reinforced. Marginal but genuine added value.

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 (search) and resource scope (founders, operators, investors covered by the publication), which implicitly separates it from siblings like search_organizations and search_products. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explains the two modes (with q = match on name, without q = alphabetical list), which implies when each is appropriate, but never states when to prefer this tool over get_person or other search_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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