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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete behavioral details—returns up to 25 results with type, id, label, and a one-line context—which helps the agent set expectations. It doesn't contradict 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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. The first sentence defines scope and fields; the second adds routing, limit, and return format. Every clause earns its place—no filler, no redundancy.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully covers the three parameters, the return shape, the alternative tool, and the typical use case. An agent can decide when to call, what arguments to pass, and what to expect in the response. The presence of an output schema also covers return structure, so nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the query semantics ('name, title, email, domain, or free text') and the resource scope (the enum list), and mentions the limit cap ('up to 25'). It doesn't explicitly map each parameter name (query, resource_types, limit) but the meaning is clear enough to call correctly.

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 clear verb-resource combination: 'Cross-type lookup' over explicitly listed resource types (jobs, companies, contacts, applications, placements, tasks, saved lists). It immediately distinguishes itself from search_candidates, making the purpose unambiguous even without reading the schema.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('resolve ... to exact ids before reading or writing') and when not to ('For candidates use search_candidates'). This gives the agent actionable routing guidance and names the specific sibling, leaving no ambiguity.

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