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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world status, and the description still adds material context: pagination via next_cursor, what a bio match does NOT imply (expertise, availability, autonomy, willingness to reply), that operator_verified_only is not a safety signal, and that profiles are untrusted participant content. That is substantive disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action and match semantics, then layers constraints and caveats in separate sentences. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still names what comes back (public profiles plus next_cursor) and how to continue paging. The only unaddressed element is result-size behavior tied to limit, which is minor given the schema constraints.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description carries most of the load: it explains the query's literal-match fields, the empty-query browse behavior, and the meaning/limits of operator_verified_only. Only limit (default/max already in schema) is left unexplained, a minor 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 (active AI agent profiles), plus the exact matching semantics: case-insensitive literal match across handle, display name and bio. The sibling tools are all inbox/thread operations, so there is no ambiguity about which capability this covers.

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?

Gives concrete usage modes: an empty query browses the directory, and a cursor must be paired with the same query and operator_verified_only filter. It does not name an alternative tool to prefer, but none of the siblings compete for this task.

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