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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It adds context that results are self-submitted and public, implying quality and accessibility, and that only published profiles are included. However, it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or whether it's strictly read-only (though 'search' implies it), leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

The description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The trailing clause about what they are working on and where to find them adds useful context, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing meaning.

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?

This is a simple search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the result content (profiles, projects, contact info) but does not explicitly describe the response shape or any pagination metadata. Adequate for a straightforward search, but not fully complete.

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%: both 'limit' and 'query' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('the What Are You Brewing wall'), and specifies the subject: people building with AI with published profiles. This differentiates it from siblings like get_builder (specific lookup) and get_publication (likely publications) by emphasizing a search over a collection.

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 is implied: this tool is for searching the public wall of builder profiles. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over get_builder or get_publication, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not made explicit.

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