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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added signal is 'matches your words against...', which is cut off mid-sentence, so nothing is disclosed about matching behavior, ranking, result size, or scope of the 'ce-net' directory.

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?

There is only one sentence and it terminates in an ellipsis, meaning the description is not merely concise but incomplete. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the verb and resource, and the dangling 'matches your words against...' wastes the only slot that could have carried behavior or parameter detail.

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, no annotation gaps, and 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the description carries the full explanatory burden and delivers almost none of it. An agent knows roughly what the tool finds but not what to pass for 'key' or 'limit' or what comes back.

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 0% and all three parameters (q, key, limit) are bare, with no types-of-values or meaning documented anywhere. The description's 'matches your words' loosely maps to q but says nothing about 'key' or what 'limit' bounds, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Find') and resource ('the agents (and people) on ce-net') with a scoping condition ('who work on a project or topic'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from write-side siblings like agent_join. However it never differentiates itself from the many other search/discovery siblings (directory_search, mesh_search, twins_search), and the sentence is truncated mid-clause.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'work on a project or topic' suggests when this tool is appropriate, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative among the numerous *_search siblings. An agent must guess whether this or directory_search/twins_search is the right entry point.

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