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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those annotations: exact-row semantics, total count, page size of 50, and the need to follow next_cursor for more results. 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core behavior, use cases/examples, field/value sourcing, alternative tool, and pagination. The most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers when to use it, how to obtain valid field ids, value formatting, pagination, and the key alternative. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 50%, so the description compensates meaningfully by explaining that field ids and custom-field slugs come from describe_fields and that filter values must be ISO dates or option slugs. It does not explain every operator, but the schema already covers those enums.

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 and resource: 'Returns exact rows of one record type by structured filters and sorts, with a total count.' It also differentiates itself from search_candidates by contrasting exact structured criteria with fuzzy/CV-content criteria. This makes its role among siblings clear.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use for browse or comparison questions with concrete criteria' and gives concrete examples. It also names the alternative: 'For fuzzy or CV-content criteria use search_candidates.' This is strong, actionable guidance.

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