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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that contact details are never returned and that free access returns a fixed 10-profile sample while a Pro-linked API key searches all profiles — materially important behavior an agent could not discover from the schema. It omits pagination semantics (how cursor/limit interact) and result ordering, which keeps it short of 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?

Every sentence carries non-obvious information: match scope, tag semantics, location nuance, contact-detail exclusion, tiering. The telegram style with backticked parameter names is scannable, though the missing verb in the opening fragment makes it slightly less front-loaded than it could be.

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 10-parameter, unannotated search tool this covers the highest-risk ambiguities (q scope, skills semantics, based_in vs location, access limits) and an output schema exists so return shape need not be explained. But pagination behavior and half the filters remain undocumented, leaving an agent guessing on how to page and how remote/comp/seniority filters behave.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 10 parameters and it only covers four of them (q, skills, based_in, location). What it does cover is high-value — the exact q-match scope with explicit exclusions (not skills, not bio), AND-ed exact skill tags, and the based_in vs location distinction. limit, cursor, remote, comp_max, seniority and open_to_work are left entirely to field names.

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 opening fragment "Published profiles." plus the name/title makes the resource and scope clear, and the q-matching rules confirm it searches people. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_agents or get_person, so an agent must infer the people-vs-agent boundary from the name alone.

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?

The description never says when to use search_people versus get_person or search_agents, nor when to prefer cursor paging over a large limit. The only conditional it gives is about access tier (free vs Pro API key), which is context rather than use guidance.

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