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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the returned field set and the fact that email status is masked unless already unlocked. It does not mention pagination limits or result caps, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: what it finds, how to drive it, and what comes back. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema, and the most important information is 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 12-parameter, no-required-params search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query construction, returned fields and the email-masking caveat. It omits pagination guidance and the dependency on get_filter_values for enumerable media/topic values, which are the remaining gaps.

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% and every one of the 12 parameters is documented in the schema, including examples and page/per_page ranges. The description only gestures at the keyword-plus-filter pattern without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Find) and resource (journalists, editors, producers, podcast hosts, creators), plus what the operation combines (keywords with filters). It is clearly distinct in substance from siblings like search_outlets and get_contact, but it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Combine free-text keywords with filters" implies the intended usage mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. get_filter_values for valid media/topic values, or search_outlets for outlet-centric queries). Usage must be inferred.

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