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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: results are ordered 'newest change first', each answer carries page, openprofile.md URL, accounts, topics, Broadcast shows, Guest section and published job metadata. It does not mention pagination or how the 200-row cap interacts with limit, but the return-shape disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the query surface, then the returned fields, with no filler sentences. The first sentence is long and parenthetical-laden, and the trailing 'Served by NicheDB (URL)' line adds little for tool selection, but the text is otherwise efficient.

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 7-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers the searchable fields, ordering, and the shape of each hit, which is what an agent needs to formulate a call and interpret results. Gaps are minor: no note on result counts/paging and no explicit statement that all filters are conjunctive.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline. The description adds only the conceptual link between the standalone title/company/seniority parameters and the tags facet, which the schema already documents ('Facet tags every result must carry: title:…, company:…, seniority:…'; 'matched as its tag'). No extra syntax, matching rules, or interaction between q and tags is explained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search by name, headline or anything in the document') and explains what a profile is ('one entry per person assembled from every app that serves their OpenProfile.md', with named upstream sources). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list-style tools such as recent_items or list_sources, though it never names an alternative search entry point like find_profile_by_linkedin or get_profile.

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 implied rather than stated: the reader can infer this is the free-text lookup path and that title/company/seniority/tags are facet filters. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for exact single-profile retrieval, which matters given siblings like get_profile and find_profile_by_linkedin.

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