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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing a 20-result cap and permission-filtered access, which are not in the annotations and help set caller expectations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the result-limit caveat is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the key remaining concerns: access scope (accessible/permission-filtered) and result cap. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a generic search endpoint.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the eventId meaning via 'restrict results to one event' but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Search accessible organization records by keyword'), making the core purpose clear. It broadly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts by targeting general organization records, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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?

It states a useful condition ('Optionally restrict results to one event') for the eventId parameter, and 'accessible' implies permission-scoped use. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over search_contacts or semantic_search, nor any exclusions.

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