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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does this well: it scopes results to published profiles, defines what q matches and explicitly excludes skills/bio, explains that skills are exact AND-ed tags, distinguishes based_in from location, and states contact details are never returned. It omits pagination and ordering, but these are secondary.

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?

Five short, information-dense sentences with zero filler. The key scope ('Published profiles') is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value about matching semantics or output limitations.

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?

The description covers the ambiguous search semantics, filter interactions, and privacy constraints, while the output schema handles return shape. It does not explain how non-q filters combine or how pagination works, but for a 10-optional-parameter tool with no annotations this is still reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema. It does for q, skills, based_in, and location with precise behavioral details, but leaves limit, cursor, remote, comp_max, seniority, and open_to_work unexplained. Those names and the schema's enum/default values give some context, so the gap is moderate.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: searching published people profiles, with person-specific attributes like name, headline, company, role, and work history. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_agents or search_jobs, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies a public-profile people search and warns that contact details are never returned, but it never tells the agent when to choose this tool over search_agents, search_companies, or search_jobs.

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