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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful extra context: role keys resolve against the seat's bound list (role floor plus tools already granted), the return fields returned, the cap of 8 results, and that the tool grants no extra permission. No contradiction with 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?

The main paragraph is dense and front-loaded with scope and behavior, and the routing line adds practical usage context. It loses one point for the repeated idea 'Does not grant extra permission' and 'Not a permission check.'

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?

Even without an output schema, the description spells out what results look like, the count, the search boundary, and the triggering condition. The agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what query to pass.

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 the schema already documents query and companyId fully. The description's 'by name or job' reinforces the query param but adds no additional syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 ('Search tools this seat can call') with clear resource scope, search dimensions ('by name or job'), and a concrete result description ('up to 8 bound tools'). It explicitly contrasts the bound list with the operator catalog, which distinguishes it from the many list_* and get_* siblings. The description is unambiguous about what it searches and what it is not.

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 explicit routing guidance: use when a tool is missing or when the agent needs to resolve 'how do I X', and explicitly states this is not a permission check. It tells the agent when to call find_tool versus simply calling a named bound tool.

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