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 still adds non-redundant context: no key/auth needed, and the exact result shape {results:[{id,title,url}]} — which matters because there is no output schema. It doesn't cover rate limits, pagination, or result caps.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information (purpose, auth, return shape, follow-up, alternative). The 'ChatGPT connector and deep research shape' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy but earns its place by explaining the return format.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned object is exactly the missing piece, and it is provided. Auth requirements, the follow-up tool (fetch), and the alternative tool (search_agents) are all covered, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'free text' wording mildly clarifies the expected query style but adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Find Peerlace agent profiles by free text') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_agents ('more filters'). An agent can distinguish this from search_agents without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear follow-up path ('use fetch with an id for details') and points to search_agents when more filters are needed. The selection condition is implied by 'more filters' rather than stated as an explicit when-to-use rule, so it falls just short of a 5.

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