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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: searching does not consume lead allowances, protected emails stay masked unless owned. The 'up to 50 per request' line partially restates the schema's limit maximum.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with the core capability first, then routing, cost behavior, and result cap. Slightly redundant in repeating the 50-result bound already enforced by the schema maximum.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining returns: up to 50 contacts, masked email caveat, and the unlock path. It still omits what fields a returned contact contains, which is the main remaining gap for an agent composing follow-up calls.

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 all nine filter parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter dimensions (city, state, industry, etc.) without adding format, matching semantics, or combining behavior for any parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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) plus resource (B2B business contacts) and enumerates the filtering dimensions, and clarifies it returns individual professionals/decision-makers rather than companies. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like search_consumer_emails, but never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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 clear context for use ('discover individual professionals and decision-makers') and routes a follow-up action to unlock_people for accessing a selected contact. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a stated alternative for other search tools in the sibling set.

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