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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: an account/auth requirement and an output-privacy guarantee that email and phone are never returned. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 with no filler, and the auth prerequisite is front-loaded before the substantive scope. Minor nit: leading with the account requirement rather than the purpose slightly delays what the tool actually finds.

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 simple 3-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers prerequisite auth, query scope, and output exclusions. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the get_speaker routing distinction is left implicit.

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 the schema already documents q, page, and country including the minLength and ISO-3166 pattern. The description restates the name-prefix and country semantics without adding syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (people on the public record as speakers) and the exact filter mechanism (name prefix and/or country). It distinguishes itself from get_speaker by describing a filtered lookup rather than single-record retrieval. It never literally uses the verb 'search,' but the title and filtering semantics make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

'By name prefix (≥ 2 letters) and/or country' implies the query modes, and the account requirement is flagged. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the sibling get_speaker, nor when one filter should be preferred over the other. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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