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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent search. The description adds useful scope: results are 'approved public' profiles and 'No private contact details are returned'. It does not describe pagination behavior, ranking, or rate limits, but the privacy note is meaningful 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The privacy constraint is placed immediately after and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a search tool with many search/get siblings, the description is missing routing guidance and does not fully explain how query and topic interact. It is adequate but incomplete for correct tool selection.

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 50%: limit and cursor are documented in the schema, while query and topic have no per-parameter descriptions. The description partially compensates by saying search works 'by name, headline or topic', which clarifies what query and topic match, but it does not explain their exact relationship or syntax.

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 and resource: 'Search approved public creator profiles'. It also narrows the searchable fields to name, headline or topic. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_creator_profile or from other search_* tools.

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?

The description implies it is for searching creators, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It never mentions when to use this instead of get_creator_profile, search_jobs, or the many other search_* siblings.

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