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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: "Uses no lookup credit" (a cost/quota trait) and a summary of what is returned (id plus CRM link), which is exactly the kind of value-add expected above the annotation baseline.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the cost/quota note immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 annotations covering safety, full schema coverage, and an output schema in place, the description only needs to frame purpose, cost, and return shape — all of which it does. The one gap is sibling disambiguation for a crowded set of search/find tools, which would materially help selection.

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 100%, so all four parameters (kind, page, limit, query) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the query dimensions and the people/companies distinction without adding syntax, defaults, or paging behavior beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("search the customer's connected CRM") and enumerates the searchable fields (name, e-mail, company name), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like search_companies or find_person_in_crm, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 implies the use case (look up people or companies by partial name, e-mail, or company name) but never states when to prefer this over search_companies, find_person_in_crm, or search_prospects. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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