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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine interpretive caveat — 'contact details do not establish account ownership' — which helps an agent read results correctly, but says nothing about pagination/offset behavior, result volume, or scoping by environment.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic out of context but is not padding.

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 and 0% parameter documentation, the description should carry more: it never says what a result contains beyond 'profiles and conversation references', nor how pagination or environment scoping works. For a 5-parameter search tool this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% across 5 parameters (q, offset, company, workspace, environment), and the description explains none of them — no search syntax for q, no pagination semantics for offset, no note on why company/workspace/environment are all required. Only the existence of a query concept is inferable from 'Search'.

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: searching imported Summer profiles along with their original conversation references. This distinguishes it from the mutation/control siblings (imports_intercom_control, imports_intercom_preview), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from imports_intercom_list.

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?

No indication of when to reach for this search versus summer_imports_intercom_list or summer_imports_intercom_preview, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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