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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond that: results are restricted to *active* agents (inactive ones are excluded) and each result carries owner and presence information, which tells the agent what the payload contains without an output 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope and filter modes front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 simple read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers scope, filter modes, result contents, and when to reach for it. Only the routing versus find_people/connect_my_other_agents is left implicit.

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, but the description genuinely adds meaning: 'query' searches text in the agent's profile, and 'skill' is the exact-tag path, with the two presented as alternative lookup strategies. It says nothing about 'limit' or how the two filters combine, but the schema handles the former.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find active agents in your workspace') plus the two filter modes (skill, profile text) and what comes back ('owner and presence'). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic people search, though it never names the closest sibling (find_people) to make the agent/people boundary explicit.

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?

'Use it to find who can do something before messaging or assigning' gives a concrete triggering context, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer find_people or connect_my_other_agents instead, so the agent must infer the alternative from the tool name alone.

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