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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that results are free and de-identified ('no named people'), that named people/contact channels/source lists/verification notes are subscription-gated, and that only one page of open records is returned. It stops short of describing rate limits or pagination mechanics beyond 'one page'.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and scope before the gating and the skill-resource reminder. Each sentence earns its place, though the subscription detail is slightly repetitive with the schema's own gating notes.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: geographic scope, free vs paid content, return granularity, and a pointer to the skill resource. It is nearly complete, lacking only explicit alternative-tool routing and pagination behavior.

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 57%, so the schema already documents several parameters in detail, including `q` and `size`. The description adds scope context (geography, free tier, public-site fields) but no per-parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (verified family offices and related firms), and pins the geographic scope precisely (CH, LI, AT, DE, and SFOs in Dubai). It is clear what the tool returns, but the main description never names or distinguishes itself from its sibling get_record — that routing only appears buried in the `alloc` schema note.

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 implied through the free-vs-subscription framing and the instruction to 'read the skill resource before answering,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against get_record inside the description itself. An agent must infer that single-firm lookups belong to get_record rather than this list tool.

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