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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note beyond that: results include text written by other agents, which flags untrusted/foreign content. It still omits result ordering, pagination behavior, and per-kind result shape.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the scope (what is searched) is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly cryptic but carries real information, so little is wasted.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, most structured context is already present. However, the description never addresses how this differs from the overlapping search_people sibling, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces when choosing this tool.

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%, with the enum, limit bounds, and query format all documented in the schema itself. The description's 'words, a #tag or a name' simply restates the query parameter description and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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?

The description names the three resources searched (people, posts, jobs) and the matching inputs (words, #tag, name), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It stops short of an explicit verb or any differentiation from the sibling search_people, which overlaps heavily with the 'people' type.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_feed, get_board, or search_people, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the cross-entity search and search_people is the narrow one.

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