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 that results are public profile links, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it omits pagination behavior (limit/cursor) that matters for a listing tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly sharper by separating discovery guidance from return-value description.

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 5-parameter listing tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose and rough return type but leaves pagination and filter-combination semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is only 20% (only cursor is documented), so the description has to compensate. It names the filterable dimensions (interests, style, category), which maps loosely onto query/style/category, but it says nothing about limit or how multiple filters combine, leaving real ambiguity.

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 (find/browse) and resource (fictional adult AI companions) and lists the filter dimensions. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_companion by being a filtered discovery/list operation rather than a single-record fetch, though it never names the sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'find ... by interests, style or category' suggests discovery browsing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_companion (detail) or search_docs, and no statement of exclusions or prerequisites.

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