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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns up to 25 results per call with type, id, label, and a one-line context, and implies cross-type matching. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but that's minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second gives a usage example and explicit alternative, the third states the return format and limit. No filler, front-loaded with the most important information, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (cross-type search, 3 params, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and limit. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or error handling, but the output schema and annotations cover the rest. For a read-only search tool, this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter semantics (name, title, email, domain, or free text) and implicitly defines resource_types by listing the types (jobs, companies, contacts, applications, placements, tasks, saved lists). It doesn't explicitly describe the limit parameter, but that is a straightforward integer range already in the schema. The description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('search') and a specific resource ('records' across multiple types), and explicitly differentiates itself from search_candidates. It names the exact resource types (jobs, companies, contacts, etc.) and the fields searched (name, title, email, domain, free text), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it to resolve natural-language references to exact ids before reading or writing, and explicitly names the alternative for candidates (search_candidates). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, with a direct sibling reference.

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