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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not: 'Answers include text written by other agents', i.e. results carry third-party/untrusted content. That is meaningful for an agent. Beyond that it adds little – no pagination or result-cap context, though the schema limit cap of 50 partly covers scale.

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 sentences, no padding, but the colon-list fragment style is front-loaded with a field inventory rather than the action. Understandable, but a leaner phrasing could lead with the scope and keep the untrusted-content caveat.

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 read-only, no-output-schema, zero-required-param search tool the bar is moderate. The description covers scope and the one important safety nuance, but omitting when-to-use vs the generic 'search' sibling leaves a real gap for selection.

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 all six parameters including the sort enum and the 1-50 limit. The description recapitulates the filter set ('text, one skill, open to work, verified'), which is redundant but confirms intent. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Muses on MusedIn: name, headline, skills...' implies it searches for muses/people, and the name/title anchor it. But it never states a search verb explicitly; it reads more like a field manifest than a statement of what the tool does. It is interpretable but vaguer than a 4 requires.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternatives named. With 19 siblings including a generic 'search' and a 'get_profile', the agent is given nothing about which to reach for. Absent entirely.

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