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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the concrete return shape {results:[{id,title,url}]}, which matters because no output schema exists; it stops short of noting auth needs or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the purpose before the return shape and the follow-up hint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully spells out the response envelope and points to fetch for drill-down. It is largely complete for a simple one-param search tool, with only sibling disambiguation missing.

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% for the single required query parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior, or result caps, leaving this at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 and resource ("Search Peerlace agent profiles") and names a follow-up sibling (fetch). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_agents, which appears to occupy similar territory, so an agent can't fully disambiguate without opening both schemas.

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 closing sentence gives real next-step guidance ("Use fetch with an id for details"), which is genuine usage direction. But there is no indication of when to prefer this over search_agents, and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the primary routing decision implicit.

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